Bernie’s Q&A: Jeff Zucker, Warren vs. Sanders, NFL Concussions, and more! (1/24) — 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):


Are we supposed to believe that the Democrats took no pleasure in this sham of an impeachment process, yet Pelosi goes and orders souvenir monogrammed pens for her Democratic colleagues. Could that be why the delay in delivering the articles of impeachment, the pens were on backorder? Maxine Waters held her pen up like it was a Championship Trophy. I’d like to point out that when Clinton was impeached, the Republicans delivered the articles to the Senate on a Saturday. There was no made for TV procession and no souvenir pens were handed out. Circus, Circus — John M.

They’ve wanted this from the day he was elected president.  They may try to hide their joy, but it comes out, as you rightly say, John.

Bernie, I was watching the movie Concussion this week and clips of your 2007 Real Sports concussion story were shown. Looking back at that story now, do you believe Dr. Casson (one of the doctors for the NFL at the time) honestly did not think there were any links between concussions and long term brain damage or CTE, and at the time you did that story did you have any idea that we were on the verge of a major shift in how concussions are handled in sports? — Joe M.

I’ll take Dr Casson at his word that he really believed there was no provable link between repeated hits to the head and various brain disorders.  Is it possible that he was covering for the NFL?  I guess so.  But I’m not making any accusations.  As for whether I had any idea that “we were on the verge of a major shift in how concussions are handled in sports” … no.  That’s because I don’t think that way when covering a story.  I just report what I know and whatever happens after that happens.

In the PBS Frontline specials on the political divide in America, the first 2 hours identified FNC (shows like Beck and Hannity) and conservative talk radio as the reason the country was pushed into the divide (as they strongly opposed healthcare reform, gun law changes, etc.). They used clips and sound bites from FNC and Limbaugh, and made a very compelling case. But so much of what ‘bias’ is about is what is left ‘out’ of a story. For example, MSNBC opted long ago to learn further left (with people like Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz, and Phil Griffin). While I have no issues w/ Frontline using FNC and talk radio as examples, it feels like bias for them to leave out MSNBC who was doing very similar things to their base. It makes it hard for a moderate like me to take other Frontline programs seriously which ironically is hurting their cause. — Chuck S.

I didn’t see the Frontline report so I’m going only on what you’re telling me, Chuck.  Bias indeed involves not only what you put in to the story, but also what you leave out.  One could make a case that conservative talk radio and TV contributes to the polarization of America.  But so does the other side.  If they had no clips from MSNBC and CNN then I’d conclude that the journalists went in with an agenda; they highlighted whatever supported their bias and downplayed or left out entirely anything that would challenge their premise.  But again, I’m only going on what you’re telling me, Chuck.

Bernie, not sure if you are a golfer but was curious if you had an opinion in contrasting golf (where players must call penalties on themselves or suffer humiliation , e.g. Patrick Reed) and the major sports where players seek a call that they know is incorrect (stealing signs in baseball , a non-catch in baseball or football or a basketball player who was not touched but gets the foul call, among others). Most avid golfers will tell you that one of the great things about golf are the life lessons it teaches (and reinforces): humility, honesty, true respect for the game, and many others. Not sure those character traits come to mind very often in our major sports these days. Do you have any favorite interviews of golfers and if so why? — Michael F.

Even if golf is theoretically different from other sports in that humility, honesty etc are supposedly ingrained in the game in ways that they’re not in other sports … there is cheating in golf.  A friend of mine played with Donald Trump before he became president and told me a great story about how The Donald cheated in a crazy, blatant way.  Too intricate to re-tell here.  But …

Here’s a favorite golf story:  A wife says to her husband, “If I die will you let your new wife drive my car?  The husband is stunned  “Are you sick? Why would you ask me that?” The wife says, “I’m fine, just curious.”  Husband says, “Yeah, I’d let her drive your car.  It’s just a car.”  So she says, “Would you let her sleep in our bed?” He says, “It’s a bed.  A mattress.  What’s the big deal?  Yeah, I’d let her sleep in our bed.” So the wife then asks, “Would you let her use my golf clubs?” To which the husband replies: “No, she’s a lefty.”

I believe Elizabeth Warren’s “sexist” accusations against Bernie Sanders are unwarranted, but it’s hard for me to sympathize with Sanders. This is a tactic from the leftist playbook, and has been used to dehumanize conservatives FOR DECADES. Sanders has never seemed to have a problem with it when conservatives are the target. Also, Sanders regularly refers to Trump (and his supporters) as “racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic.” I’d like to ask him how it feels now that the shoe is on the other foot? And do you think this will lead to some self-reflection from him?

Also, in regard to how that CNN debate moderator doubled-down on Sanders allegedly saying a woman couldn’t win the presidency, despite his denials, do you think that there is even the slightest chance that the liberals who deny MSM bias might see this incident and actually think to themselves, “HEY, Wait A MINUTE! This is what our side has been doing to unfairly smear conservatives for years! THAT’S NOT RIGHT!”? — Feuding Leftist Regards from the Emperor.

Here’s your problem, Emperor:  You’re thinking logically.  Bernie isn’t thinking that the left has smeared conservatives and now the shoe is on the other foot.  He’s not thinking that for even one second.  Besides, my guess is he really did tell Senator Warren that a woman couldn’t win.

As for introspection by liberals who deny MSM bias:   NO, they’re not saying Wait a Minute or anything like that.  They have very little introspection.

But keep hoping and wishing and dreaming, Emperor.  It won’t change anything but if it makes you feel better in some way, fine with me.

My son starts classes at Columbia University today, and last week I moved him into an apartment in West Harlem. When not sleeping on his IKEA couch, I stayed across the Harlem River in the Bronx. I know you grew up in the South Bronx some years ago and was wondering if you ever get back there. I grew up in Dallas and now live in the ‘burbs, and many parts of my city have changed twice over. Just curious, how has the Bronx of your childhood changed or stayed the same? Also, any advice for my college kid in NYC? He’s 21 years old and a Marine, so not exactly innocent, wild-eyed and naive. By the way for Christmas I gave him a framed picture of Lou Gehrig in his Columbia baseball uniform. I knew you would appreciate. — Steve R.

Hey Steve.  I haven’t been back in a very long time.  When I grew up there it was a lower middle class neighborhood with, by and large, stable families.  Things got worse in the 60s and 70s — a lot worse — but then neighborhoods came back to life.  The elementary school I went to was on Charlotte Street, which later became the symbol of urban decay.  I watched Ronald Reagan campaign on Charlotte Street and saw my school over his shoulder.  Charlotte Street came back to life too.  Do I miss the old neighborhood?  Honest?  No.  I’ve moved on.  As for advice to your son:  Be careful on the streets around Columbia.  And at the university itself, be careful not to live inside the bubble that surrounds many elite schools.  But I’m sure he’s a smart kid and knows what he’s getting into.  Finally, sounds like a great Christmas gift!

I don’t view it as my job to waste my time confirming just how bad CNN is by tuning into it every now and then. Isn’t that why I pay you the astronomical sum of $4 a month, Bernie? Ha. You can keep me posted on when they start to try to at least act like a responsible news organization. My question is, unless they are a not-for-profit organization owned by George Soros, why do the shareholders sit still for this? CNN’s ratings have nosedived in recent years. Does this somehow translate into $ for the bottom line? Or is the corporation that owns it as ideologically bent as the the network and doesn’t care if they make a profit? Inquiring minds want to know. — John F.

Maybe Jeff Zucker is one of those guys that can sell ice cubes to Eskimos. He’s run the place into the ground and somehow gets away with it.  Go figure.  But you’re absolutely right:  It’s not your job to waste time watching CNN.  That’s what I’m here for.  I promise that the next time I alert you on a CNN matter, it will be when they, as you put it, “try to at least act like a responsible news organization.”  I figure that’ll be never.

Joe Buck had a good (all) sport interview show called Undeniable. It disappeared. Do you know why? Also, what’s your opinion on the Astro’s debacle and who should get the pennant? — Beverly

Not sure why Undeniable isn’t on anymore.  I liked it too.  Re the Astros: Everyone associated with that scandal needs to pay a price — a hefty one.  The managers and GM have already been hit … so that leaves … THE PLAYERS who knew what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway.  If it turns out they really did wear electric devices that delivered a minor shock indicating what kind of pitch was coming, kicking them out of baseball for an entire season  would be fine with me.  As for who will win the AL pennant this year:  The Bronx Bombers, I hope.  I also hope it’s not the Astros.  That would be … awkward.  As for the NL:  Let’s go with the Dodgers.

Or the Nationals.

I’m unclear what protections the whistleblower is afforded under the whistleblower protection policy, therefore I don’t understand why it is unfair to disclose his/her identity. I’ve always been under the impression that the whistleblower protections were designed to prevent retribution, such as being terminated from one’s job. Equally, I’ve understood that in law the accused has the right to confront his/her accuser. Both of these seem like fair principles to me.

Here’s my confusion: While the name of the whistleblower has not been officially disclosed (as far as I’m aware), there seems to be a broad understanding, at least among the TV talking heads, as to who the whistleblower is. If, in the unlikely event, the Republicans agree with the Democrats to call witnesses, why wouldn’t they compel, by subpoena, the testimony of the whistleblower and then of Adam Schiff to determine if the two versions of what happened during and following the famous call to the Ukraine president marry up? Many thanks. — OverTheTop

Your understanding of the protections afforded whistleblowers is correct.  Here’s why his or her name isn’t being disseminated widely.  If something were to happen to the whistleblower — something very bad — the news outlet that released his name would then be in the crosshairs.  That said, if the whistleblower were a conservative Republican who unleashed the dogs on a liberal Democrat president, his or her name would be out in a nanosecond.

I hear from a lot of people who think the whistleblower’s testimony is important.  I don’t.  But I do think the identify of that person would be very interesting.  What if he’s Joe Biden’s cousin?  Or an executive at the DNC?  Or someone who thinks Trump is Hitler. But we know pretty much what the president said in the call.  The whistleblower can’t shed light on the content of the call — except maybe to say there was more said than what’s in the summary.  And it is a summary, not a verbatim transcript.  So I don’t care if the whistleblower testifies. The summary speaks for itself. But as I say, I do think his or her identity would be mighty interesting.  It certainly would shed light on motives for blowing the whistle.  Thanks for the question, OverTheTop.  Is that your real name?

 


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: Impeachment, CNN Debate Bias, the Robach Video, and more! (1/17) — 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):


Bernie, I like your input although I don’t always agree with you. But you do make some salient points. You rail against the toadies on Fox News. I tend to agree with you as far as identifying Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham as toadies. But I find the reporters and other commentators well balanced. My question is, what about the toadies for the democrats and socialists on CNN. MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC? — Victor P.

I’ve commented more than once, Victor, that CNN and MSNBC are the same as Fox in that their commentators pander to their audiences just as Fox commentators pander to theirs.  And while the people on Fox’s prime time lineup cover for the president, the people on CNN and MSNBC’s prime time line up bash everything Trump does.

As for reporters on Fox, by and large I think they’re very good.  I think the Fox Washington bureau reporters are excellent.

Now to ABC, CBS and NBC:  Their biases aren’t nearly as blatant as those on cable mainly because they don’t have opinion shows per se.  Do they lean left?  Basically yes.  But not like Fox leans right or the others lean left.

When my high school graduation was coming up many years ago I couldn’t wait. I believe the vast majority of my class in the late 60’s left high school with great optimism. And I believe us baby boomers made the world a vastly better place. We took what our fathers and mothers did and made it better. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe kids leave high school today with that same optimism. And more directly, I believe left wing positions have a lot to do with it. Your thoughts? — Tim H.

I haven’t spoken to high school kids in quite a while, so I don’t know if you’re right, Tim.  But I think you’re on to something when you talk about the influence on them coming from the left.  When I was in high school — whether it was said out loud or not — there was a sense that America was a great country.  Now, one gets the impression that its America’s imperfections that are highlighted.  And polls have indicated that young people embrace socialism more than capitalism.  So, as I say, good chance you’re on to something important here, Tim.

Last week someone brought up the leaked Amy Robach video where she talked about having the goods on  Jeffrey Epstein, but not being allowed to report on the story. Part of that video that seems completely forgotten is where she said, “It was unbelievable what we had. Clinton—we had everything.”

She was obviously talking about former president, BILL Clinton. A dubious relationship between Epstein and Clinton should be a HUGE story, but as far as I’ve seen, Robach hasn’t been pressed by anyone in the media to explain what exactly she “had” on Clinton. Is it malpractice to just drop the topic (as the media seems to have), or is it possible that whatever Robach found was understood to be too thin/unreliable to warrant additional media attention? — Ryan S.

Here’s the problem, Ryan:  Amy Roach ain’t talking anymore.  Her job security might be on the line if she talked.  But if she had said, “It was unbelievable what we had on Trump — we had everything” … then, and pardon me stating the obvious, there’d be a whole bunch of interest in what she meant — and ABC probably wouldn’t have killed the story.

Bernie, I continue to look forward to this every week. Good questions, good answers. Thanks for doing this in lieu of writing another book and am enjoying your weekly audio clip as well.

Regarding the “assassination” discussion (from last week): my online Merriam-Webster site lists the first definition of assassinate is “to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons.” No doubt that the attack was sudden or secret….the “for political reasons” part is what I contend doesn’t fit necessarily. But then again that was itself modified by “often”, which would imply not exclusively. I think my reaction to the MSM’s characterization of the attack as an “assassination” is because I am interpreting their comments (correctly, I believe) as trying to cast this in the worst possible light, undermining its legitimacy. If they wanted to fairly discuss its legitimacy, I think they could have used another word….as the Emperor said, this word brings to mind to most people folks like John Wilkes Booth and Brutus. — John F.

I’ve been thinking about this since the question came up last week.  You and the Emperor make good points.  And I acknowledged that I understood the concern about using that word.  Was it to try to cast the attack in the worst possible light?  Knowing how too many reporters think … yeah, good chance.  Here’s the other thing about the word assassinate:  We generally use it when the person killed is a great person — Lincoln, JFK, MLK, etc.  By putting Soleimani in that group journalists invite blowback.  You make a good point.

Also, here’s a link to a NRO story that I think you’ll like.

While the constitution states clearly that the Senate has ‘sole’ authority to try impeachments and the Chief Judge (SCOTUS) ‘presides’, can the judge impose his will on the Senate and, possibly, do things like call/demand for witnesses, or compel the presentation of other documents or evidence? — Andrew M.

Don’t know what he CAN do, but I do know what Justice Roberts WILL do.  He will do everything he can to try to stay invisible, to try to insure that he doesn’t come off as a political player.  So, he won’t call or demand witness testimony or compel the presentation of evidence — though he may have to rule on questions about all of those things.

Whenever I hear Greta Thunberg and the other alarmists criticizing carbon footprints and the like, I NEVER hear them complaining about or addressing the nations that cause the most damage (China, India, and Russia). These people almost always gripe about changes that they say the western nations need to make, especially the U.S. (and its citizens). Why? If they’re really that concerned about climate change, wouldn’t thy be trying to get the worst offenders to make the biggest changes? Yet they don’t seem to be doing this. Your thoughts? — Global Warming Regards From The Emperor

Once again, you hit on an important — yet overlooked — point … leading me to believe you should give up your Emperorship and become an editor at the New York Times.  No joke.  As for why Ms. Thunberg and the others lay off the most serious polluters, it’s likely because attacking them isn’t as satisfying to the left as attacking the United States and the other western nations.  Crazy, right?  But I suspect we both know it’s true.  To progressives, we’re the bad guys — whether the subject is race, gender, class or climate.  It’s their default position.  I have a hard time imagining Ms. Thunberg coming out and blasting China and Russia.  And if she did she’d never become Time magazine’s Person of the Year.  She’d be investigated instead as a right wing shill.

Maybe I shouldn’t be, but I was stunned last week at the response among the media and others from the left after Trump had Soleimani killed. It’s one thing to question Trump’s foreign policy and the potential for escalation, but so many on the left sank to a new low in their defense of this dictatorial terrorist. They were singing his praises and mourning his loss. It was despicable. Is there any self-awareness from this large group of leftists, and do you think this is one of life’s examples where hatred makes fools of the haters? — Steve Rogers

I’d put it slightly differently, Roger.  It’s not that the left is defending Soleimani.  The Dispatch (Stephen Hayes’s new site) ran a pretty good fact-check on this claim.

It’s that the knee jerk response from the left is that President Trump was the one who was escalating tensions in the region, that he was the one taking us to “the brink of war.”  Bulletin:  The Middle East was never Switzerland.  I don’t know when it was last stable and safe.

The left has a nasty habit of blaming America first.  That, I think, is what we have been seeing — more than liberals and progressives mourning Soleimani’s death.

Make sense?

How will we (the folks in the middle) ever put up with another four years of a Trump administration should he win, since the unhinged Left is already way off their tracks? My TV News watching days will be over I’m sure.
— ScottyG

Good question and here’s a non political answer:  There’s more to life than politics.  A lot more.  Spend less time watching cable news and more time doing things that make you happy.  I used to watch a lot of Fox.  No more.  And I feel better.  Besides, we, as a nation, have survived a Great Depression, two World Wars, 9/11 and a lot more.  We’ll survive whoever is elected president — and the predictable noise from cable TV that surely will follow.

This morning (1/14) every sports radio broadcaster on the dial was saying Joe Burrow just completed the greatest college football season in history, on the greatest college football team in history. It was a great season (probably one of the better ones in the last 40 years), but the game’s been around for 150 years and I am pretty sure all of the broadcasters on air this morning have only covered the sport for about 15 – 20 years. Why does the media get so dramatic about events and classify many of the good things that happen as the “greatest ever” (and many of the bad things that happen as the “worst ever”)? Maybe they are doing it to drive clicks and ratings but it undercuts their credibility. — Joe M.

They sound a lot like a certain president who also thinks everything is the greatest ever.  That said, maybe it’s just the excitement that goes with witnessing the “greatest” game ever and the “greatest” season, etc.  Maybe these analysts get caught up in the moment.  And maybe — maybe — they’re really onto something.   But if they’re not, if a real reporter goes back into the archives and determines this wasn’t the greatest anything, then yes, it undercuts their credibility.  Speaking just for me, I don’t take it all that seriously.

Mr. Goldberg, With the recent Astros cheating scandal which outrages me, I wonder what your thoughts are surrounding the punishment? I applaud the Astros ownership for the moves they made immediately following the MLB announcement. Having said that, I still wonder why Pete Rose, who earned his rightful spot in the Baseball HoF for his on-field performance, also earned a lifetime ban for betting on his own team, and yet the Astros don’t have to vacate their World Series from 2017. At the very least it should have an asterisk, no? — Tim R.

The kind of cheating the Astros are guilty of corrupts the sport and (to put it mildly) tarnishes their World Series win,   I’m with you on the asterisk.  And if the perpetrators got a lifetime ban I wouldn’t have lost any sleep over it.  If MLB wanted to vacate their  championship season. that would be OK with me too.  Like you, Tim, I recognize that this is a big deal and in a way transcends sport.  It tells us about a culture that puts winning at all costs over everything.  And if you think you can get away with cheating, hey why not give it a shot?  Well, the why not is that now a bunch of people are out of work — and I hope humiliated..  I wonder if the players are embarrassed.  They certainly should be. They were the ones who benefited most from the cheating.

In your “Off the Cuff” interview with George Carlin, you said he made you think. That comment brought to mind the “Dilbert” cartoonist, Scott Adams, and his latest book, “Loserthink”. Have you interviewed him? What is your opinion of Scott Adams and his view of the world? — Ival S.

Have not read the book, Ival, and usually don’t follow political cartoons.  I know a little about Adams — over the years he’s been an independent thinker … but more recently a big Trump fan.  I’ll give him credit for being public about that since he lives in California.

In this week’s Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders was asked by the moderator whether he’d told Elizabeth Warren that he didn’t think a woman could win the presidency (a claim Warren had made about a private conversation between the two). Sanders flatly denied having said that.

The moderator then immediately turned to Warren and asked, “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

In other words, the moderator totally disregarded Sanders’ denial, and presented the original claim as a matter of fact to tee up a question for Warren. What are your thoughts on this? Pro-Warren bias, or clumsy mistake by the moderator? – Trevor M.

I thought it was a perfect example of crummy, biased journalism — and not a clumsy mistake.  I think she believed Warren’s story and didn’t believe Bernie’s, and so thought she could ask the question the way she did.  But what she should have asked Senator Warren is: You just heard Senator Sanders deny your version of the story.  Is he lying?

There’s another theory floating around.  That CNN has chosen sides.  Warren’s side.  And they want to hurt Sanders.  And this was part of their game plan.  I’m not subscribing to that.  I have no facts to back that up.  But would I be shocked given how far CNN has fallen?  No.

 


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: Trump/Soleimani, Megyn Kelly, Royal Family Drama, and more! (1/10) — 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):


Once upon a time whether you were Liberal or Conservative, one thing we could all agree on is that the national security of the United States and its citizens abroad was paramount. No longer. The hate for Trump knows no bounds and taking out a terrorist leader like Suleimani is being decried by Democrats. You even have some liberal media types calling Suleimani an iconic leader. I guess if Trump had taken out Osama Bin Laden the left would have canonized him. It’s really pathetic how this man can do nothing right in their eyes. You wanna dislike the man, have at it, but give him his due when it’s deserved. The left even does it’s best to downplay the vibrant and thriving economy…..when they even find time to discuss it between working on impeachment. — John M

You’re absolutely right, John … and Donald Trump, as you know, is not my cup of tea.  I just wrote a column on this very subject.  I plan to post it next week.  Donald Trump, despite what Democrats running for president say, isn’t the one responsible for heightened tensions in the region.  The Iranians are — something Biden, Sanders and the rest might want to consider.

A few months ago the Dems were in full meltdown mode over Trump withdrawing troops from Syria because they thought that would destabilize the region. Now they are in full meltdown mode because he is sending troops back to that area (Iraq mainly) to deal with the unrest being caused by Iran. It sounds like the Dems only strategy is to oppose Trump even when he does something they support, am I wrong? It seems so bad now that I am willing to bet that the Dems would become pro-life advocates if Trump came out in support of abortion… — Joe M.

You are NOT wrong, Joe.  If Donald Trump says its daytime, they’ll make a case for it being midnight.  The question is will the swing voters see through their presidential year politics.

By the time this question is answered almost an entire week will have passed, so please bear with me. First, when I think of “assassins,” I think of Sirhan Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Gavrilo Princip, among others…so why did the mainstream media call the death of General Soleimani an “assassination” as I don’t believe that’s exactly what it was. For that matter, Bin Laden’s death was more like an assassination, but I would not label THAT incident an assassination either. As to whether the decision to take out this Iranian general was a good or bad idea, history and the near future will have to answer that question, but that has not stopped right winger Tucker Carlson and other pundits from giving their own opinion. And some left wingers are condemning this action because the general was an enemy of ISIS (although that doesn’t make him an ally of the U.S.), so I would like to hear your own personal opinion on Trump’s decision as well. — Instability In The Middle East Regards From The Emperor

As I’ve said before in this week’s Q & A, as far as Democrats are concerned, Donald Trump can’t do anything right.  It’s presidential year partisan politics — at its worst.  And it’s a very safe bet that if President Obama had taken out the Iranian general, the reaction from his fellow Democrats would be quite different from what we’re hearing now.

As for use of the word “assassination” to describe Soleimani’s death:  My dictionary says assassination refers to a deadly attack on “a prominent political leader.”  So, I think using that word is OK. But I understand your concern — labelling the U.S. as an “assassin” is jarring.  But not everything is a big deal. Let it go Your Highness.  You’re too big to fret about how some media type used the word.

Hi Bernie – I always enjoy your perspective on things and especially agree with your assessment on the lack of professionalism with today’s so-called ‘Journalists’. Generally, I find the Wall Street Journal to be the only news outlet that maintains traditional standards of journalistic professionalism. But occasionally even they surprise me.

Recently two articles appeared side by side in the online edition, both written by the same journalist (Michael Derby). The first headline read “Big Banks Seek Less Liquidity From Fed Amid Stable Money-Market Rates”. The second headline read “Demand For Fed Liquidity Rises, New York Fed Injects Nearly $100 Billion”. I thought the articles seemed at odds with each other, so I emailed the author. His response was “What’s your question? They’re from two different days”. The journalist apparently doesn’t see anything odd or contradictory with the two articles. Maybe I’m just too old to get it. True, one was dated January 7th, 2020 and the other January 8th, 2020. Am I missing something or is this just more anecdotal evidence of the lack of journalist professionalism? — David B.

I don’t think it’s lack of journalistic professionalism, David, but I do think the journalist could have been a tad more friendly.  Why not respond to you by saying … “Yes, it does look contradictory but things changed in 24 hours … but I can see how you might wonder what’s going on.”  I don’t know Mr. Derby but in general I think journalists often have a certain contempt for the general public.  How dare you question us, type of thing.  Make sense?

Bernie, how hard are you taking the decision of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to step back as senior members of the Royal Family? I know you follow British royal news rather closely, so I’m sure you have an emotional investment in this developing story. — John D.

Actually, I was thrilled to hear the news, John.  I got a call from Harry and Meghan just the other day and they wanted to know if they can stay at my house while in the States.  Sadly, I had to say no.  The Rolling Stones will be there when the royals wanted to visit and the Stones — hard as it is to believe — can get crazy.  I mean what if Keith or Mick hit on Meghan?  I don’t need that in my house.  But I did tell Harry and M (I call her M; she loves it) to try again some other time.

Can you compare today’s political environment to any other period even close in your days as a journalist? Are you concerned much that Trump’s unorthodox presidential approach is getting the US into any irreversible predicaments that would be overly painful to recover from? — Scotty G.

I don’t think we’ve been this polarized in a very long time.  1968 was not a good year but it was mainly about one issue, Vietnam.  Today, the divide is about everything.  Democrats are not the loyal opposition. They’re the resistance.  That’s worse than ever too.  As for “irreversible predicaments” … No, I don’t think we’re in that kind of trouble.  Time takes care of things that seem irreversible.

Hi Bernie. Why do you think the current crop of lefties/progressives think that they get to be the moral arbitrators of all of history and its important historical figures and they get to judge their worthiness? We shouldn’t be renaming college buildings, tearing down works of art and statues because of some perceived racism. Where did this arrogance come from? Thanks and go Vikings! — Garbralter

It is arrogance. I’m with you on that.  Liberals seem to think that not just smarter than everybody else, but better — which (they figure) gives them license to be the moral arbitrators you correctly describe.  And if you don’t believe me, just ask them.  They’ll tell you how wonderful they are.  Conservatives can be crazy too, but in a different way.

I spent part of my day Wednesday reading Wikipedia for information on what caused the Iraq-Iran War in the 80s because my brother challenged me on our dealings with Iran. I gathered that in the 80s, the US supported Iraq in their pursuit of power and territory and the reason was because Iran at that time was a ideological threat growing in capacity. Over two decades later, we dealt with Iraq because of Sadaam Hussein. Now we’re handling Iran. Help facilitate my thinking here. How, exactly, did the US support Iraq in the 80s? Did we make a mistake doing so? And do you have a book recommendation on the subject of the United States and its involvement beyond our borders? Thanks — D-Rock

Forgive me D-Rock but since I’m not a historian, I’ll keep it short.  Based on what I know Wikipedia got it right.  We supported Iraq because we didn’t want Iran to get even more powerful.  Then we invaded Iraq.  And you wonder why people don’t trust the government?  My favorite line about the Iran-Iraq War came from Henry Kissinger, who said, It’s a pity they both can’t lose.

Megyn Kelly has taken to filming independent interview videos for her website and social media, where she’s focusing on issues related to sexual misconduct. A few months ago she interviewed the CBS staffer who was fired for allegedly leaking the Amy Robach video about Jeffrey Epstein. This week she’s talking to other former Fox News women who’ve gone public about past sexual harassment at the network. She’s probably doing this indie stuff while she waits for a no-compete clause with NBC to expire (I’m just guessing), and I doubt she’s making any money from it, but I’m curious what your thoughts are about how she’s using her brand these days. Smart move to keep herself in the public-eye while also exploring a legit topic? — Jen R.

Once again, Jen, you nailed it.  Or at least I’m on the same wavelength as you.  I also think she’s keeping herself in the public eye … hoping for some buzz … money not the issue at the moment … and waiting for an opportunity to get back in the game.  If I’m wrong, I never agreed with you.  And never wrote this response.

 


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: Christianity Today, Chuck Todd, Evangelicals, the Monsey Attack, and more! (1/3) — 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):


Hi Bernie – I’ve enjoyed your books and TV commentary for years. I’m probably asking a question that I should know the answer to, but are you planning another book? If so, can you give us a hint as to what it will be about? — Pete

I have a deal with several friends, Pete. If I do another book they have my permission to shoot me.  So I guess the answer to your question is no.  Doing radio interviews (over the phone) day and night is torture.  Doing cable TV isn’t much better.  I’ve been approached to do another book and turned down the offer.  But, I’ll cover myself and say …  never say never.

So I see the “progressives” in Cali have decided to pass a law which will take place in 2020 that says public schools cannot suspend students for disobeying teachers! SMH This doesn’t surprise me which is scary in and of itself, I mean ,I believe Comrade DeBlasio and NYC already has such a law, but geez, who in their right mind would continue teaching in a public school under these circumstances? What is it with these progressives that they are against law&order at any level? Times like this I’m glad I’m in the 4th quarter of life because this country is going to hell in a handbasket at a fast pace. Wishing you a Happy New Year, Bernie & Friends — John M.

If you want to see what America would look like if progressives ever took over, just go to California and you’ll find out.  Suspend kids for disobeying teachers.  That’s like torture, right?  But you’re wrong when you suggest that progressives might be against law & order.  They’d gladly put Donald Trump in prison — and would if they could.

The anti-semitic machete attack in Monsey was perpetrated by a “man of color.” This incident likely will NOT get the same amount of coverage or outrage because the attacker was not a white supremacist scum bag or Trump voter in a MAGA hat. As for the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas, where a congregant with a weapon took out the shooter, I don’t know (as of this writing) anything about the shooter’s ethnic background or religion.

Why do left wingers go out of their way to downplay it when criminals “of color” are the ones committing violent acts and hate crimes? Even the most strident leftists have to realize that this nonsense only benefits criminals “of color,” NOT the victims OR the law-abiding good citizens “of color.” 

Downplaying the role of conceal/carry during incidents, like in Texas church, ALSO don’t benefit anybody except potential shooters. So again, why does the left do this? — Best New Year’s Regards of 2020 to you, From The Emperor

In the case of most crimes, the race of the person is not relevant.  The reporter doesn’t need to convey whether the guy who held up the bank was white, black, brown or purple.  But in hate crimes, race often does matter.  And on this, Emperor, you’re right.  If a bunch of MAGA hat people were attacking Jewish people the liberal media would be all over the story.  I’ve written a piece on this that will go out early in 2020.  For now, I’ll share this much:  white liberals don’t like talking about dysfunction among minorities because the white liberal is showing his good racial manners, to use a term coined by Shelby Steele.  They’re telling the world, I’m a good white person — not like all the others.  It’s a form of racism.  A softer kind, but a kind nonetheless.  Stay tuned for more.

I’ve been in the high-tech industry a long time. In a recent poll of a few major high-tech firms the political donations are overwhelmingly to the Democrats. But these companies overwhelmingly operate as zealous capitalists. I find it completely ironic that industries built upon free enterprise from employees to the founders support a Democrat party hell bent on destroying the very principles to which they benefited. I believe that with the right message and if the Republicans could get back to a conservative message, they could have a major win next November. Your thoughts on this matter. — Tim H.

I’m with you on the first part about how Silicon Valley capitalists support quasi socialist Democrats — but don’t think any message from conservatives will change liberal minds.  The minds on both sides are pretty much closed at this point.

Hi Bernie. Monday you wrote that you’d like to see some courage from Evangelical leaders by telling Trump he needs to have better character. I have a feeling many others have tried without success. We know by now what we are getting and while often disturbing, the results are good. For some reason the pressure on Israel to commit suicide to prove their morality, comes to mind. Additionally, with all the verifiable examples available, I was surprised you included the one of Trump supposedly mocking a reporter. I had researched that and found it inconclusive. Do you know something I don’t? An article in investors.com and a video from foxnews which shows Trump often using that mannerism to make a point or depict people who are avoiding an issue suggests he was not directing anything at the NYT reporter — who incidentally may not even shake and wave his arms. Last, I can certainly relate to the Evangelicals. As a secular-humanistic Jew I obviously have little philosophically in common with them. But given the choice of living in a country run by the totalitarians on the left or the Evangelicals – I would choose the Evangelicals. You? — Michael E.

Let’s start with Trump making fun of the disabled reporter.  Believe what you want but consider this, Michael: When Trump mocked the reporter he said, “you gotta see this guy” then started shaking … and shaking more so than the few times he did something like that against other perceived enemies.  But Trump also claimed, after he got hammered for what he did, that he’d never seen the reporter.  A lie.  The reporter had spoken with Trump, in person, many times over the years.  My take?  Trump was lying as he usually does when it hits the fan because of something stupid that he did.

As for the white evangelical support of Trump.  I very clearly said that I understand why they do it.  Read the piece again.  But then I went on to ask, why can’t a leader like Franklin Graham gently push the president to act better than he does.  You say you have a feeling that some ministers have tried.  I have a feeling that you’re being hopeful.

The Bee Gees once sang that “words are all (we) have.” As a professional wordsmith and first tier journalist, please share your thoughts regarding how PC culture and the MSM have made certain words verboten and invented new words and phrases for the purpose of manipulating the masses to garner power and squelch dissent. Newspeak anyone? — Michael F.

I find PC culture at times scary, and at times, ridiculous.  They can screw around all they want with words but euphemisms can’t hide reality.  Orwell showed us that. Here’s a modern day example of PC culture making a reasonable person scratch his head.  If you refer to an African American as a “colored person,” you’ll be called a racist.  But if you refer to that same African American as a “person of color” you’re progressive.  You can’t make this stuff up.

Your column and French’s editorial contain points Christians need to reflect upon. As a Christian who voted for Trump and will vote for Trump, I have and I will. I do not hold him up as an ethical/moral role model. As far as publicly criticizing his character, I don’t feel that I need Franklin Graham to do that. What do I know about what Mr. Graham has told President Trump, gently or otherwise in private counsel? What do you? Because it has not been said publicly, does that mean it hasn’t been said? As a Christian, Donald Trump is not my spiritual advisor. He is the political leader of this country and his political enemies will stoop to literally nothing to undermine his election and his governance. Most of his policies he’s implemented have been good for America. Most of the policies espoused by his political opponents would do the opposite, in my view. My conscience is clear as regards voting for him or supporting his administration. I don’t doubt the sincerity of French’s comments. However, I view the rush to now label evangelical Christians as hypocrites for voting for him and/or not publicly condemning him as just another tool in the toolbox of those who are grasping to destroy him for ANY reason. Call me less than convinced when other politicians who support the killing of unborn babies at any time and for any reason start playing the Christian virtue card and start talking about prayer. — John F.

John, for the ten millionth time, I understand why white evangelical Christians chose Trump over Hillary … and will choose him again over any of the Democrats.  It’s an realpolitik position.  But for ministers to publicly criticize those who take issue with the president’s vulgarity and nastiness, yes, I find that hypocritical.  Donald Trump has lived a life that demeans everything good Christians believe.  Vote for him anyway if you want; again, I understand.  But if you’re a leader, stand up publicly and say, “While we support you we wish you’d behave differently.”  If they’ve said it privately — which sounds like wishful thinking —  then what did their private pleas get them?  More talk about kissing ass and bullshit?

Believe whatever you want — and I’ll do the same.  And if those ministers want to support the president because of his policies … it’s a free country.  Again, I get it.  And again, I’m not arguing about their political judgement.  I’m commenting on what I see as the ease with which they go along with such a man as Donald Trump … while attacking the president’s critics.

Regarding your column Monday, Christians see the trap. Reject Trump for his personal flaws and we have to reject every American leader and especially the founding fathers. Reject Trump for his personal flaws and we need to reject Christianity and all organized religion. Just look at the old testament. David was raised by God to become a great King but with huge personal flaws including infidelity and murder. God raises champions. Just look at George Patton. And how about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick? So God works thru scoundrels … men and women with deep personal flaws. Trump moved the USA embassy to Jerusalem. Seems biblical. So not ready to reject Trump because he insults other politician. — Charles K.

When did I ask you “to reject Trump because he insults other politicians”?  For that matter, when did I ask you to reject him for picking fights with Gold Star families?  For suggesting that John Dingell is in hell? For hinting that Carly Fiona is too ugly to be president? For saying he likes heroes who aren’t shot down?  And for a lot of other nasty comments he’s made.

Let me be blunt because I’m growing very tired of this:  Vote for whomever you want to vote for.  But let’s not pretend that you’d treat Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton the same way if they did what Donald Trump has done.

Let’s keep it positive to start off the new year; What is the proudest and or most rewarding experience in your career so far? — Scotty G.

Speaking truth to power … at CBS calling the mainstream media out for liberal bias … and at Fox … not being afraid to offend the audience or Fox management by calling out President Trump’s behavior.

Chuck Todd recently took heat over referencing a year-old “letter the editor” from someone who explained that Trump supporters “want to be lied to” because they believe in “fairy tales” like Noah’s Ark. What a lot of pro-Trumpers latched onto was the framing of a Bible story as a “fairy tale,” which came across as elitist and dismissive of the Christian faith. Their response was understandable, I think, and I felt the same way when Trump mocked Ben Carson’s story about how Carson became a Christian. But removing the religious connotations altogether, is it safe to say that a lot (not all) of Trump supporters are not only fine with being regularly lied to by Trump, but also appreciate Trump’s (and the conservative media’s) “folklore” presentation of his presidency, in which the bluster and animated storytelling are greeted with far more significance than the facts? — Alan D.

I could not have said it better, Alan.  Bravo!  You got it right.

 


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: Shelby Steele, Trump’s “Impeachment” Interview, Entertainer Controversies, and more! (12/20) — 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: There were some very long questions this week that we had to trim down. Please try to keep your questions at a reasonable length. Thank you.

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


Mr. G, I have asked this question for the past 20 years, so it is Not Trump specific; But after watching the Presidential Executive Order ceremony to fight Anti-Semitism Why do most Jews still vote Democratic? I just do not get it. — Scotty G.

Because, for many Jewish voters liberalism trumps Judaism.

I am not sure if you followed the Peloton ad fiasco, but if you did can you explain to me why the constantly offended crowd and MSM in this country is treating an actress, who is acting out a script that she agreed to act out, as a real life victim of domestic violence? Are we so caught up in our media driven world that we cannot tell the difference between real life and TV acting? It may have been a distasteful ad, but the two actors were just playing out their scripts, the male and female actors are not a real couple in real life. How was that fact missed by the media and so many others? — Joe M.

I saw the ad and don’t understand why some people were so offended.  It’s not even about the fact that they were actors playing a role.  The roles they were playing simply didn’t bother me.  Maybe I missed something but I don’t understand what the connection is to domestic violence.  That said, I wonder how the snowflakes would feel about an actor playing Hitler.

By Impeachment , is the Democratic Party trying to impose a one Party Dictatorship ? Not that it could succeed. Your thoughts? — Joseph V.

How would that one party thing work?  If a president is impeached AND removed from office, his VP would take over. Same party, right?

Do you see any changes to investigative reporting going forward based on the Mueller and Horowitz reports? It seemed to me that Fox News’s investigative reporting came out a big winner having correctly predicted the Mueller report (no Russian collusion) and the Horowitz report’s 17 serious mistakes. CNN and MSNBC looked bad. Fox News’s investigative reporting did reveal the FISA abuse and many of the 17 significant mistakes, some several years ago. May we see a return to the old days of investigative journalism? — Charles K.

Too often, especially on cable news TV, journalists confuse wishful thinking with actual reporting.  Fox News’ hard news team is very good.  The others too often “report” what they would like to see happen.  That’s not investigative reporting.  It’s wishful thinking masquerading as news.

You responded to a letter regarding the “War on Christmas” that Bill O’Reilly talked about by saying “some conservative Christians really did believe there was a war on their religion and on Christmas in particular — a war waged by secular liberals. But where did they get that idea? From cable TV, mostly.”

The idea that Christianity in general and Christmas in particular has been under attack in this country is a view held not by just “some conservative Christians” who watch cable TV but by the vast majority of Christians, cable watchers or no. The move to remove Christianity in particular and religion in general from the public square in this country has been going on for decades, long before anyone heard of Bill O’Reilly. Whether you agree with efforts to remove the Ten Commandments from public buildings or “In God We Trust” from coinage or not, to reduce this very real and pervasive move in our modern culture to fringe elements influenced by a TV host for ratings is incorrect and a vast oversimplification of our recent history. You should really take a second look at this and talk to someone in the Christian community besides Bill. — John F.

John, you make a reasonable point.  And thanks for making it.  I may have oversimplified, as you say.  But please don’t underestimate the power of cable — to unite and rally like minded believers … and to validate their feelings and opinions about all sorts of things, including being victims.

I have a friend with whom I shared your points, and he wrote back to me.  Let me share his comments:

“As a conservative Christian myself, I can tell you that neither I, nor my churchgoing family members and friends felt Christmas was ‘under attack,’ as opposed to being subjected to politically-correct silliness (including from businesses and schools that were trying to be more inclusive), until cable news hosts shaped the narrative as such. We all know that there’s a growing cultural resistance to (and bias against) organized religion, and Christianity is an easy target. But the ‘War on Christmas’ theme was really overblown. There was (and is) nothing nefarious about ‘Holiday trees’ or ‘Happy Holidays’ or ‘Winter break.’ Is some of that P.C. stuff kind of dopey? Yes. Maybe a little misguided? Sure. But the intent behind it isn’t to eradicate, but rather to appeal to a broader group of people.”

That makes sense to me, John.  Let me know what you think.

Bernie, a simple question for you in our combative times:what is more important: the truth or power? — Michael F.

Truth.  But power IN THE RIGHT HANDS makes it easier to convince people that the truth matters.

We’re at the time of year where you see a sizeable turnover in the college football coaching ranks. Ah to have become a major college football coach. Win or lose, be a success or a failure, you become a multi-millionaire. I could cite example after example of coaches who have failed miserably and not only received outrageous buyouts/severance, but in many cases are almost immediately hired by another school. Take the case of Charlie Weis, fired by Notre Dame, paid $15 million in severance, immediately hired by Kansas, fired after 3 years, no idea what they paid him to leave. More recently Willie Taggart is fired by FSU after 3 mediocre seasons, reportedly owed close to $20 million in severance from them, and was just hired by FAU. I could go on and on. In what other profession can you totally stink at your job and not only get paid multi millions to leave, but immediately get hired by another employer? Yeah, should have been….. — John M.

Sports is funny that way.  It’s one of the few places where you can be mediocre and get rich in the process.  Good point, John.

The pic of you and the Pope reminded me of an incident involving the canonization of Mother Teresa. Apparently Christopher Hitchens was invited to be the devil’s advocate in the process of pre-canonization. He came up with several reasons why Mother Teresa shouldn’t have been declared a saint. He claimed that she, rather than helping the sick and dying of Calcutta, actually took all the money she received from charitable donations and gave it to the Catholic Church. Other reports say that some people, who could have been saved with medical treatment, were allowed to pass away because (again allegedly) it was more important to her to save their souls and prepare them for heaven than it was to save lives.

I don’t expect you to know the details of these allegations, but there is something you might know as a journalist. According to Hitchens, the saintly persona of Mother Teresa was manufactured by British journalist Malcolm Muggeridege, whom Hitchens labeled a “fraud.” If you’re familiar with this, do you think Hitchens was correct in his assessment of Mother Teresa and Malcolm Muggeridge? — Third World Regards From The Emperor

I know about Hitchens role as devil’s advocate.  But I’m not knowledgeable enough about Malcolm Muggeridge’s role — if any — in regard to creating Mother Teresa’s saintly image.

Bernie, enjoyed the piece on the diversity of the Dem Debates ( or lack thereof depending on one’s perspective). Isn’t it interesting that the Democrats are now under the same set of rules as the Academy Awards (begging the question as you pose “What Exactly do you want?”). Related to the NYT piece, have you ever read Shelby Steele’s book “White Guilt?” It changed the way I view race in America in many respects and is a must read for those on both sides of the aisle who would like to see an “honest debate” about race in America (as I do). — Michael

Shelby Steele is a wise man.  I’ve been a big fan for many years.  And I’ve quoted him frequently both in my columns and in several of my books.  I spent some time comparing notes with him on a river cruise in France many years ago; we were among a small group of speakers sponsored by National Review.  Like you Michael, I wish more people would read his book(s).  His wisdom will open their eyes too.

Bernie, I have a solution for the Dems in 2020. Run anyone, but don’t really fund them or back them – you accept that they are going to lose. Dems should put all their money and energy into the Senate and House races and try to get a majority in both Houses of Congress in 2020 and 2022 and annoy and frustrate Trump for four straight years. He get’s nothing done and in 2024 the Dems are a shoe-in for the President and both Houses. — DrJ

Interesting, but why do you think the Democrats should “accept that they are going to lose.” Donald Trump may win re-election but it’s not a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination.  As I’ve written before, if he loses it won’t be a Democrat who beat him.  It’ll be Donald Trump who beat Donald Trump.  The economy is doing very well, but his personality to many Americans is toxic.  If the election is about the economy, he’ll likely win.  If it’s about him, all bets are off.  The Democrats are hoping for the trifecta — the White House, the Senate and the House.  And that’s also possible.  One more thing, Dr. J:  I thought you were great on the basketball court.  I miss your grace and elegance going to the hoop.  Merry Christmas.

As the father of two grown kids in their 20’s, I have been intrigued by the college admissions cheating scandal. On the one hand, the brazenness and hubris by all is so over the top it does shock the system. On the other hand, this whole story reeks of the natural outgrowth of status, celebrity and bulldozer parenting (we don’t have snowplows in Texas). I refer to it now as having “trophy children”, where offspring are being used to put showy parents on a pedestal. It’s not enough for the powerful to have a trophy wife or car, they must now have trophy children. And spare me the “I just want what’s best for my kids” defense. What is your take on this story? — Steve R.

I think you’re on to something, Steve.  It’s not unusual for parents to brag about their kids. Annoying at times, but not unusual.  Perhaps it’s in our DNA to tell our friends how well our kids are doing.  But when parents cheat to get their kids into (in some cases) a good school, how does that help the kids?  They’re being put into a situation where they may not succeed.  So who benefits?  As you say, Steve, it’s the parents who can brag about their “trophy children.”  It’s a kind of affirmative action — for well off white folks.

You tweeted [on Wednesday night]: “The phone call was not perfect. Like Trump it was deeply flawed. But … Trump’s real “impeachable offense” is that he beat Hillary Clinton. They’ll never admit it, but it’s true!

I agree on the Democrats’ motivation, since they were preparing to impeach even before the phone call. But then Trump went ahead and actually handed them an “impeachable” offense (defined as a serious abuse of power) by trying to extort a foreign country for dirt on his political rival. Right?

If a different president (other than Trump) did this, I’m not sure the other party wouldn’t have sought impeachment either. (I might be wrong.) Also, what are your thoughts on the 2008 video where Trump (after praising Nancy Pelosi as Speaker) said he was disappointed that she didn’t impeach Bush (who he says deserved it) for — get this — “lying” to America? Irony! — Jen R.

Editor’s Note: Here’s the video:

It’s way beyond ironic, Jen.  Way, way beyond.  Donald Trump can’t open his mouth without saying something that isn’t true … yet here he is, saying W should be impeached — for lying??? Our president is not only a deeply flawed human being, he’s not well. His narcissism is a mental disorder.  He lacks an ounce of introspection.  When it comes to his shortcomings, he’s delusional.  I could go on.

And his pals in the media — I’m talking about the sycophants at Fox — blissfully ignore his craziness.  They’re as bad as he is — except I can change the channel when those bozos come on.

King Bernard…..hope this goes through for Friday’s Q&A gold mine….short and oh so sweet……what are your thoughts on the Designated Hitter in MLB…and yes, yes, YES!….I know light-hitting, absolutely NO fielding Ron Bloomberg of your beloved Yankeees was the first ever DH…….I must hustle off…gotta go eat some rat poison where I can stomach tonight’s Democratic debate follies — …….Greggo

You know who you remind me of, Greggo.  I’ll tell you.  A very wise man.  His name is Aristotle.  No, just kidding.

As for the DH:  As a purist, I’m be against it.  As someone who likes home runs, I’m for it.  But having two sets of rules in MLB is crazy.  So, let’s either initiate the DH in the NL or drop it in the AL.  Which do I prefer?  Drop it in the AL.  But honestly, I don’t give it a lot of thought.  Please say hi to Plato for me.

Bernie, regarding your answer to my question last week, I could see where maybe I was a bit over the top. I was angry about the way that Leftists are getting away with horrible behavior toward Conservatives. I was particularly upset about the 14 year-old Florida boy who was beaten on a school bus for wearing a MAGA hat. That’s what I was talking about when I brought up Hillary’s “RESIST” call. They ARE resisting…violently. She might as well have yelled “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater. ANTIFA beating up people whom they see as Conservatives. Kids beating up other kids for wearing a MAGA hat. College students threatening Conservative speakers with violence if they come to THEIR campus. Yes, Bernie, I may be nuts. But I’m tired of the abuses from the LEFT. I’m tired of the hate and the stupidity running rampant in our nation. And I truly believe that Hillary Clinton bears a large portion of the blame as these things were not as commonplace before 2016 and her loss as they have become since she called for people to RESIST. No real question this week, just wanted to clarify and to say that you could be right. I’ll try to tone down my rhetoric. I can see where fanning the flames with cries of TREASON would only add to the hatred and not offer any solutions to it. Please accept my apology. — Jake H.

No problem Jake.  And I too am tired of the hate and stupidity running rampant in our nation.

 


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.