Showing posts sorted by date for query Maddow. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Maddow. Sort by relevance Show all posts

TUESDAY: Scott Galloway is a very good person!

TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2026

Except when it comes to this:  Bill Maher and Scott Galloway recently hooked up at a club. Luckily, we're speaking here of Club Random, Bill's online extended chat room.  

As we noted yesterday, we hugely admire what Bill has done in his many years of blending humor with commentary. That's an extremely challenging task. 

Also, Galloway is an obvious high-IQ type. Despite that, when we watched the tape accompanying this report, we saw the gents say this

GALLOWAY: I think Gavin Newsom is going to be our president. I think we’re a looks-ist, sexist, racist country and the only thing I’m fairly confident about is that the Democratic nominee will be a straight white man over 6 feet tall.

MAHER: You think in general the country is racist and sexist. In 2026.

GALLOWAY: Yeah. Yeah.

MAHER: That characterizes us in a general way? 

To gauge the fellows' tone of voice, you have to watch the videotape. That said, Galloway's sweeping generalization is the sort of "lefty" thing Bill is typically inclined to challenge.   

To our ear, Bill sounds quite skeptical about Galloway's characterization, but he lets the assertion pass. Had we actually seen Bill defer to a major, high-end guest?   

We could picture it flat or round. But then, the ladsgood God!went on to agree about this:   

GALLOWAY (continuing directly): Well, OK, I don’t see any reason why Secretary [Hillary] Clinton lost to Donald Trump other than sexism. I think if she’d had a d*ck, she’d be our president.

MAHER: I mean, I’m a fan. You know, I always thought Hillary would be good. She’s one of the most sort of common-sensical people I’ve ever seen in politics.

GALLOWAY: Confident, smart, centrist.

MAHER: Smart. Yes. Centrist. Yeah. But I also see why she lost? Why she rubs people the wrong way?   

We're punctuating to tone, but those comments struck us as remarkably clueless. Let's start with this:  

Employing the rude language of rough men, Galloway seems to say that we the people are (probably?) too sexist to elect a woman president. As an example of what he means, he cites a woman (Hillary Clinton) who actually won the popular vote by just under three million votes!  

He can imagine no other reason why Candidate Clinton lost. 

Fellow citizens, please!  Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Party nominee in 2016. By then, she had been savaged on the national stage for 24 years, by figures in the hard right and by waves of major figures within the mainstream press.  

(She's still slimed three or four nights a week on the grisly Gutfeld! showsometimes for (allegedly) not being sufficiently attractive, more often for (allegedly) being a murderer. She was hounded by "Emailgate" all through that election, with the New York Times widely blamed for the endless emphasis. 

She was mugged by James Comey twice in 2016once in early July, once in late October. Rachel Maddow and the others on that channel were careful not to defend her, as we detailed at the time.  

Some of the long- and short-term pounding she took in those years could definitely be attributed to sexism. But another fact is also true:

Her husband was a giant political talent. She, like almost everyone else on the face of the earth, basically wasn't and isn't. 

We don't mean that as a personal criticism, simply as a matter of fact. Meanwhile, the lads seemed to think that being "smart" is qualification enough. 

Obviously, noit isn't! How do these guys not know that?   

Back to the sweeping claim about the sexism / racism of them the American people:

It's amazing, but the Galloway types and the Hollywood types never stop alienating voters with presentations like this. Galloway is very smart and he's very well intentioned, but these people never stop getting themselves videotaped making sardonic remarks about how offensive the American people are.   

Bill seemed unimpressed with that part of what Galloway said, but these guys never stop doing this. They come on stage, win votes for Trump, then go name-calling away.  It's a form of caroling for the finer class of people.

You could almost call them "deplorables!" Except that condemnation is already taken. The condemnation came from Candidate Clinton, and it may have cost her the race.   

Everybody makes mistakes. Despite our admitted brilliance over here in Blue America, the academics and the Hollywood types basically never stop making this mistake. As Moses says to the Holy Trinity in the old Paul Reiser joke:

Are we here to play some golf? Or are we just gonna f*ck around?

(We believe you can figure it out.)

REFUSAL TO ASK: Senator Whitehouse became the latest...

TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2026

...who wasn't willing to ask:  Is something wrong with President Trump? We've called it the one remaining question.

Last night, we'd have to say it was Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) who was refusing to ask.  

We'll detail his refusal below. It came during his appearance with Lawrence O'Donnell, whose work this year we've often admired and praised.

Down below, we'll detail the senator's refusal to ask. First, though, we'll take a look at O'Donnell's monologue concerning the new Supreme Court decisiona decision which may (or may not) turn out to be disastrous.

The monologue started exactly as shown below.  It started at 10:02 p.m., after two minutes of chuckling and laughing with Rachel Maddow, who continues to proveor so it sometimes seems to usthat life can still be very good if a major corporate group is paying you $20 million per year.

(Given the ongoing state of play, we do find all that laughing and chuckling highly unattractive at times.)

The monologue started at 10:02. There's no correct answer to this next question:

Does anything in this opening passage possibly seem slightly odd

O'DONNELL (8/24/26): If Natalie Harp went to law school, she could have written the Supreme Court opinion today about Donald Trump's attempt to seize control of voting by mail in the United States.  

It's one of those opinions issued on the so-called emergency docket, which means the case was not fully argued to the Supreme Court, but all of the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court decided that the case was so urgent that it needed to be ruled on immediately, with none of them willing to actually sign this thing today, which leaves it very likely to have been written by Chief Justice John Roberts, whose first sentence could only be written by a Natalie Harp-type Trump groupie, someone who believes in the Trump fairy tale of a Never Never Land where Donald Trump was never. ever. ever indicted and charged with conspiracy against the United States of America for trying to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election.  

Donald Trump is the biggest and most famous election criminal in American historythe only president of the United States in history to call the secretary of state of Georgia and ask him to commit an election crime. [Audiotape]: "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have."  

The Supreme Court and Natalie Harp are just totally cool with thatthe Republican Supreme Court. 

What you just heard is one of the crimes that Donald Trump was charged with in both a federal indictment and a criminal indictment for violating Georgia state law. And so it took Natalie Harp-like delusion for the Supreme Court decision today to begin with this first sentence...

At this point, Lawrence quoted the decision's first sentence. But does anything in that opening passage possibly seem a bit odd? 

As we watched O'Donnell last night, that opening did strike us as odd. He had started at 10:02. It was now just 10:04, and he had already flagged "Natalie Harp" on four separate occasions! 

He had assailed the Chief Justice as a "Natalie Harp-type groupie." He'd also accused the Chief Justice of engaging in "Natalie Harp-like delusion."   

He'd pictured her as a law school grad. He'd pictured Natalie and the Court pretty much joined at the hip. 

She, of course, had nothing to do with the decision in question, which might turn out to be disastrously important. But it almost seemed that a "Natalie Harp-style obsession" had taken hold of this good person's head!

At this point, O'Donnell gave his analysis of the new Supreme Court decision. Soon, though, he was back to describing the six Republican-appointed Justices as "the Natalie Harps of the Supreme Court," and he later referred to John Roberts as "Chief Justice Natalie Harp!"

We've frequently admired O'Donnell's work this year. To our eye, he often seems like the only MS NOW anchor who actually takes it personally as the United States of America continues to slide down the slope, becoming a type of failed state, due to the conduct of the sitting president.   

The president's current move to seize control of voting by mail may end up hastening that descent. (Or not.) In large part, it will depend on what the Court decides to do when it assesses this matter on the merits.

But it seemed to us that O'Donnel was well out over his skis during last night's monologue. Eventually, he almost made it sound like Natalie Harp is the real cancer on the presidencythat poor unknowing President Trump is being unknowingly taken in by her Natalie Harp like behaviors. 

Harp was cited more than twenty times in the opening monologuea monologue about a Supreme Court decision in which she played no part.

Is something wrong with Natalie Harp? We can't exactly tell you. We can, however, tell you this:

It seems quite likely that something's wrong with the sitting president. His niece, the doctorate-holding clinical therapist, has assessed it like this:   

BURNETT (2/26/26): You've known him your whole life. Do you actually see a decline?

MARY TRUMP: I do, but I think it's important to remember that Donald has never been fit in any capacity. Obviously, what we're dealing with now are age-related cognitive declines. We're dealing with physical issues that the White House tries to cover over.

But this is somebody who for decades now has had serious, undiagnosed and untreated psychiatric disorders, which are only going to worsen, especially given the pressure he's under and given the cognitive and physical declines.  

His untreated disorders will only get worse. They're "only going to worsen"

Presumably, everyone can see that this is happening before our eyes, as he declares that he's good with flagpoles and very good with trees. 

He also seems to think he's good with the design of aircraft carriers, as Maddow noted last night. He's trying to affix his name to every available surface.

If this is the "cognitive decline" his niece described as "obvious," we'll only say that these declines happen to some people, not to all, and we'll note that the afflicted don't choose to go into decline.

He says he's good at everything now, and he's putting his name on every known surface. Still, men like Lawrence may want to talk about "the girl." 

Meanwhile, Senator Whitehouse! Last night, he spoke with Lawrence about the Court's ruling. He then discussed the president's latest (trade) war, which seems to make zero sense.

Even the Wall Street Journal has called it his dumbest trade war, the senator correctly said. And then, at least to our ear, he became the latest to take a dive:

SENATOR WHITEHOUSE (8/24/26): He's making a huge mess. And I can't help but think there's something in the back of his strange mind that knows he's failing as president and that wishes to tear down the whole Republican Party with him so that he does not fail alone. 

There's almost no other reason why a president with control over all the chamber of Congress and the White House, would, on the issue most important to the American people, do something so stupid and so counterproductive and so chaotic...

Question! Does the sitting president have "a strange mind?" Or could it be that he's mentally ill, and that it's going to worsen? Because that's what his niece told Erin Burnett before being hustled away, leading to the next bout of media silence.  

("There's no other reason" for what he keeps doing? Could it be that he's mentally ill, or in "obvious" cognitive decline?)

Will he gain control of voting by mail? That remains to be seen. 

What night he do after November 3? Having taken down the GOP, could he decide to take down the whole country?

Could he even decide to do that? Everyone is in agreement! They agree not to wonder or ask!

Tomorrow: We leave this framework behind


SATURDAY: Dems are leading in six states!

SATURDAY, AUGUST 15, 2026

In search of the real Suzanne Scott: In yesterday afternoon's report, we noted the fact that Candidate El-Sayed is behind by four points in Michigan, according to a new survey by the Fox News polling unit.

Sherrod Brown is ahead by eight in Ohio, we noted, also according to Fox.

We're concerned about Michigan, where "prickly" is unlikely to win (or so it seems to us). That said, we thought you should hear the rest of the story, at least as told by Jessica Tarlov yesterday on The Five.   

Her presentation starts here. After saying that El-Sayed will be hurt by his association with Hasan Piker, she went ahead and said this:   

TARLOV (8/14/26): [El-Sayed] is trailing Mike Rogers by four points. And I understand why Republicans want to look to that facet of the Fox poll, because everything else is a disaster for Republicans, except the Michigan race. 

You have Ossoff up 13, Cooper up 9, Brown up 8, Turek up 4, Talarico up 3, and Jackson up 2, and then El-Sayed trailing by 4, so there is definitely work to do.    

So Tarlov said. She was referring to Democratic Party leads by these Senate candidates in these six states, according to Fox polls:  

Jon Ossoff in Georgia (+13) 
Roy Cooper in North Carolina (+9)
Sherrod Brown in Ohio (+8)
Josh Turek in Iowa (+4)
James Talarico in Texas (+3)
Troy Jackson in Maine (+2)  

Is that a disaster for Republicans? Not necessarily, no. 

Will those leads hold up in the end? We have no idea. 

That said, our nation is in a world of extremely serious hurt, and Blue America's largest news orgs (and best-known journalists) just keep playing it safejust keep averting their gaze.  

For reasons too depressing to state, we don't think a "prickly" approach will work for Candidate El-Sayed. With respect to life at the bottom of the barrel, consider the way El-Sayed is being portrayed by the droogs of the Fox News Channel as our Blue stars look away.

Gutfeld! is the third most-watched program in American "cable news." Its viewership more than doubles that of corresponding shows on MS NOW, with CNN's viewership lagging behind even that.  

Gutfeld! is a corporate messaging vehicle being misidentified as a "late night comedy" program. (It airs at 7 p.m. in the west!) Last night, in his handful of opening jokes, its host hit these favorite themes:   

Rosie O'Donnell is too fat
Michelle Obama is too big and too strong  
Something's wrong with Nancy Pelosi's face   
Hillary Clinton likes to kill people 

A certain pattern may seem to obtain. Along the way, he included this messaging moment with respect to El-Sayed: 

GUTFELD (8/14/26): You know, the Internet was amused over Abdul El-Sayed's Blue's Clues parody video. 

[Brief excerpt from El-Sayed video] 

Except the part where he stones Dora the Explorer to death for traveling alone.  

AUDIENCE: [General puzzlement]   

(Blue's Clues? What's that? Just click here.)

Understandably, the audience seemed a bit bewildered by that rather obscure presentation. That said, this was meant to deliver the message that El-Sayed is a violent "Muslim extremist" who would stone a little girl to death if she dared to venture out alone. 

This sort of sickness is now standard fare on this inexcusable "cable news" program. As people like Jeff Greenfield refuse to notice, the program's host is constantly suggesting that, just as Hillary Clinton likes to kill people, Mayor Mamdani and Candidate El-Sayed like to fly planes into the side of buildings or, in this particular case, are inclined to stone people to death.

This is ugly, prehistoric fare. CEO Suzanne Scott is now paying this man to do this sort of thing on a nightly basis. 

None of Blue America's news orgs are willing to report the fact that Suzanne Scott is doing this. No one is willing to ask her why she would do such a thing. 

This is ugly behavior of an undisguised, unmistakable kind. As our nation continues to slide toward the sea, the point of this conduct is obvious.

The point of this ugly conduct is obvious. Maddow and French and all the stars are all averting their gaze.


SATURDAY: "He has a story in his head!"

SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 2026

Is he mentally ill? Is something wrong with President Trump? Once again, we started the current week with that same old question. 

On Monday night, Lawrence O'Donnell repeatedly called the president a madman. At one point, he referred to the president's "insanity."

In our view, O'Donnell did excellent work all week. But at one point on Monday night, he made a deeply peculiar remark:   

O'DONNELL (7/27/26): Everyone knows how crazy the president of the United States is. And no one is calling for the use of the 25th amendment to remove the madman in that image from the office of the presidency because the entire professional Republican Party in Washington has accepted fully the madness of Donald Trump. 

The American news media has understandably run out of words to describe the horror of the madness of Donald Trump.

Our journalists have done all they could? They've "understandably run out of words?"

Lawrence O'Donnell is deeply experienced, but that was a strange assertion.

As we noted yesterday, for perhaps the ten millionth time, our major news orgs have agreed that they must never discuss an obvious possibilitythe possibility that the president is (severely) mentally ill. 

Over the course of the past ten years, many medical specialists have said that the president does seem to be mentally ill. In the old days, several ranking medical specialists discussed that possibility with O'Donnell himself, right there on The Last Word

Below, we want to remind you, once again, about the basic conceptual frameworks surrounding the concept of "mental illness." First, though, consider what happened, yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening, on two major news broadcasts.   

We start with last night's PBS NewsHour. Brooks and Capehart were on hand, as always, to be interviewed by Geoff Bennett. 

Is something wrong with President Trump? Right at the start of their weekly segment, David Brooks said this:

BENNETT (7/31/26): David, what does it say that the president is apparently willing to sacrifice his attorney general's confirmation, rather than make concessions on this settlement fund?

BROOKS: All hail the king! The government is there to serve the president, not to serve the government. And so he wants that $1.8 million [sic] slush fund

Billion! Sorry. I was only counting my share.

(Laughter)

But he also wants immunity from prosecution from the IRS, and that's the key. Because he's made boatloads of money...

So he wants that. And he's got this story in his head, which is like the core of his identity these days: He was robbed of the 2020 election, the January 6 people were perfectly nice people, and the prosecutions that he endured in his years out of power were the deep state going after him. 

And that's central to his identity, and that's going to always be the priority.   

The president "has a story in his head," and it's "like the core of his identity." As Brooks describes it, the story in the president's head seems to conflict with basic reality, but it sounds like that story's not going to change. 

He's got a story in his head, It's central to his identity! We're inclined to agree with what Brooks said, although what he said is quite fuzzy. Earlier, on MS NOW's Deadline: White House, one-time Trump aide Sarah Matthews seemed to say something similar.

Matthews resigned as a Trump aide on January 6. She spoke with Nicolle Wallace:  

WALLACE: (7/31/26): There are lots of public-facing proof points of his decline, performatively, perhaps cognitivelyI don't know. 

This feels like the inability to stop talking about an event where it was his supporters who were beating the cops...Why do you think he can't stop talking about it?  

MATTHEWS: You know, I think that Donald Trump has always been a broken man. But I do think that losing the 2020 election fair and square to Joe Biden permanently broke his brain.  

WALLACE: [Laughter]

MATTHEWS: I don't think he's ever been able to recover from that, because he looked at someone like Joe Biden and he thought, "How could I lose to this guy?" I mean he called him, you know, "Sleepy Joe." And then obviously it affected him because he's a narcissist. His ego won't allow him to see the facts for what they arethat there was no election fraud and that it was Joe Biden who was the winner of the 2020 election, and so he's been fixated on this topic and talking about the election...   

Matthews continued from thereand she isn't a medical specialist. Like almost everyone else, she hasn't had professional experience with people who are (significantly) mentally ill.

She isn't a medical specialist! But she plainly seemed to be stating the view that something is wrong with the president:

According to Matthews, his ego won't allow him to see the facts for what they are.  

As she continues, Matthews plainly says that, in her opinion, Trump really believes the apparently crazy claims he keeps making about the events of January 6.  

According to Matthews, he isn't lyinghe really believes it! That's not unlike what David Brooks said about the story the president carries around in his head, which is like the core to his identity.

Are Brooks and Matthews possibly describing a type of diagnosable "mental disorder/mental illness" For example, could this be a diagnosable version of "delusional disorder?" 

("Delusional disorder?" That's a clinical "mental disorder/mental illness" you can read about simply by clicking here.)

Are Brooks and Matthews clumsily describing some diagnosable mental disorder (mental illness)? Putting it a bit more simply, or perhaps somewhat differently:

Is it possible that the sitting president really believes the unfounded claims he continues to make?

We don't know, and they don't know eitherbut there are medical specialists in this country who, at least in theory, could shed light on that possibility based on their medical experience. 

That said, for better or worse, people like Wallace have agreed that they will never interview the medical specialists who could offer expert assessments about the possible state of the president's mental health and cognition. They simply aren't going to go there!

For better or worse, Wallace won't interview such medical specialists, and neither will Rachel Maddow or pretty much anyone else. They won't tell you that they're skipping such interviews. Presumably, they're just doing what management tells them they have to do.

On occasion, O'Donnell conducted such interviews in the past, but it looks like those days are gone.  For better or worse, Wallace simply chooses to laugh when a lay person like Matthews launches an honest attempt at describing the president's mental state.   

Does it matter if something is wrong in the way Matthews describes? Below, we'll highlight one key phrase in what Mary Trump recently said:

BURNETT (2/26/26): You've known him your whole life. Do you actually see a decline?

MARY TRUMP: I do, but I think it's important to remember that Donald has never been fit in any capacity. Obviously, what we're dealing with now are age-related cognitive declines. We're dealing with physical issues that the White House tries to cover over.

But this is somebody who for decades now has had serious, undiagnosed and untreated psychiatric disorders, which are only going to worsen, especially given the pressure he's under and given the cognitive and physical declines.   

Her uncle's ongoing psychiatric disorders "are only going to worsen!" Other medical specialists have said the same thing, dating back to 2017. Wallace laughs delightedly and refuses to consider the possibility that this disturbing prediction could be accurate.

Is there some such thing as "mental illness?" Does "mental illness" exist?  

Our primitive discourse is highly unsophisticated when it comes to such basic questions. As a general matter, we Americans struggle along with an extremely unsophisticated public discourse, the results of which are now increasingly obvious.

We Americans! As a general matter, we accept "the germ theory of [physical] disease," but we have a profoundly undeveloped set of understandings about the basic features of mental illness. More generally:

Over here in Blue America, We Blues just aren't amazingly sharp, and our best-known journalists aren't a whole lot better. 

Over there, in Red America, the Fox News Channel airs its clownlike dog-and-pony shows to audiences which dwarf our own, and our news orgs in Blue America don't say a word about the endless clowning.

There's nothing left for the press to say? Our major news orgs have "understandably run out of words to describe the horror of the madness of Donald Trump?" 

We've run out of ways to describe the madness without ever having tried the one most obvious way?

 Why in the worldwhy on earthdid O'Donnell make such a weird statement? In fairness, we'll close with this:  

Is it possible that President Trump is "mentally ill" in some serious way? (For example, is it possible that he's "delusional" in some clinical way?") Beyond that, is it possible that he's "mentally ill" in a way "which is only going to worsen?"

You'd think our journos would want to know! But if they tried to examine such a possibility, would they know how to do it? 

As with any serious illness, a serious mental illness should be a cause of sympathy, pity, concern. Our discourse doesn't run on such fuel. As Professor Brabender memorably said, midway through the last century:
Where I come from, we only talk so long. After that, we start to hit. 

 

WE BLUES: Can anyone deny that something is wrong?

MONDAY, JULY 27, 2026

We Blues almost surely will: In fairness, his first remark, taken in context, was a bit self-deprecating. You could possibly call it good-natured.

The comment was actually funny. To our ear, it got an honest laugh.

The fellow had just been introduced by Weijia Jiang, the head of the White House Correspondents Association, at last Friday night's restaging of the association's annual dinner. 

As part of her introduction, she made a reference to the cancellation of the first attempt. Below, you see what the sitting president said:

JIANG (7/24/26): ...President Trump, I've covered you for a long time and so have many reporters in this room.

When we ask questions, you push back. You give us answers, and we push back. You have always been a "deal" guy. Well, that's the dealand the First Amendment is a done deal. 

And that's what we toast tonightthe freedoms that brought us back together, even after they were threatened. So let's raise a glass to what makes ours a beautiful country.

[Jiang leads the toast]

And now, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the 45th and 47th president of the United States, President Donald J. Trump.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Wow! That was very beautiful, but this has not been an easy eveningall these awards.

 AUDIENCE: [Laughter]

PRESIDENT TRUMP: [Grimaces, shakes his head]

As you can hear on the videotape, he got a very good laugh. We've been in many rooms where joking comments were offered. To our ear, the laughter he got was both authentic and earned.

In the earlier part of the evening, he'd sat in his seat at the head table as awards were given to various journalists who had challenged his endlessly disordered behavior. The awards were deserved, but the comment was ruefuland his rueful comments was rewarded with laughter, as you can hear on the tape.

His first comment received a good laugh. His presentation went downhill from there, screaming as it did. 

(For Roll Call's transcript, click here.)

He started with endless, tedious recollections built from his astonishing degree of self-involvement. From there, he proceeded to long strings of inane, inappropriate insults, driven along by his standard array of absurd, long-corrected misstatements.   

Governor Pritzker was "a fat pig." Governor Newsom's name was "Newscum." Jake Tapper was really "Fake Tapper."

Senator Schiff was said to have a "big fat ugly head." ("I call him watermelon head, because he has the largest head I've ever seen with the smallest neck.") 

Rosie O'Donnell is "a sick older woman, I guess now I have to say."  

We're omitting reams of other insults, not wishing to drive certain images and certain bogus claims forward. Pathetically, though, he even went with this embarrassing mess at one point: 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I know Dumocratsand the word "Dumocrat" is something that's come into fashion. I changed the E with a U. And most people don't know that "dumb" has a B. So, we don't have to worry about that.

It's very quiet [in the hall]. I thought it was quite good, but I haven't gotten much credit for that. 

We'll offer a guessmost people do know that "dumb" is spelled with a B. This seems to have been a recent revelation to the sitting president, though perhaps to no one else.  

The insults and the self-involved tedium went on and on and on. At roughly the 50-minute mark, C-Span's cameras began to pan to frozen faces in the audience, as you can see on the official tape

As you can see on the tape, it panned to frozen faces in a silent hall at 10:22 p.m., then again at 10:23. 

Out in that audience, there seemed to be nothing except frozen faces, many looking down. At 10:28, as the droning continued, C-Span even panned, for the first time, to frozen faces at the head table. 

At 10:29, it showed another frozen face at the head table, along with a second person who was now sitting with his back turned to the president.   

He had now been droning for 56 minutes. At the one-hour mark, he finally said it:  

"It was a rigged election." 

Roughly five minutes later, he closed with an unhappily accurate statement:  

"Our country's doing things that no one's ever seen before."  

The accuracy was unintentional as the gentleman finally stopped. With that, we pose this morning's question:

At this point, can any serious person really doubt it? Can anyone doubt that something is severely wrong with the president?

He had seemed to be sleeping about half the time as he sat through the earlier speeches and the aforementioned awards. Later, he seemed to have trouble opening his eyes even when he himself was speaking. 

Can anyone doubt or deny that something seems to be wrong? The answer we'll give you today is this:   

We Blues are going to do just that! We Blues aren't going to speak!

David French and David Brooks aren't going to say it. Nicholas Kristof isn't going to say it. Neither is Michelle Goldberg or Peter Baker or anyone else from the New York Times news division.

Rachel Maddow isn't going to speak, and neither is Nicolle Wallace. Joe and Mika aren't going to say it. Neither is Lawrence O'Donnell.

No one at The Atlantic is going to speak. Jeffrey Greenberg isn't going to give anyone that assignment.

Anderson Cooper isn't going to speak, and neither is Jake Tapper. We're sorry to say that the same is almost surely true of Kaitlan Collins, whose character we've admired since the first Covid year, when she alone was willing to challenge the endless blather being performed at the president's televised bullroar and blather events.  

Is something wrong with President Trump? At this point, what sane person could really deny it? Consider:

As you probably know, the president tried to insult Collins at Friday night's event. The insult he tried to aim at her got more attention than any of the million additional insults which froze the faces of an entire ballroom that night.  

He tried to insult her, but neither she nor CNN was bowing to his pathetic attempt. And so, inevitably, what did he do? 

Of course! Turning to Truth Social, he went ahead and did it again! Over at Mediaite, here's the start of Joe DePaolo's report:

Trump Doubles Down on His Attack Against CNN’s Kaitlan Collins By Posting a Shocking New Meme

President Donald Trump doubled down on his attack against CNN’s Kaitlan Collins by posting a shocking new meme to his Truth Social account.

In a Sunday morning Truth post, the president shared a doctored photo depicting Collins in place of trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney in a 2023 Bud Light promotional campaign.

Trump’s new meme comes on the heels of his attack on the CNN anchor Friday night at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in which he compared Collins to Mulvaney.

Joe DePaolo's report for Mediaite continues along from there. To see the president's Truth Social post, you can just click here.

Just to be clear:

The president's Truth Social post says nothing "shocking" about Collins. With great valor, she led the way in the first Covid year. 

We've been grateful ever since. The president's post says nothing "shocking" about her.

To the extent that the post is "shocking," it's shocking because of what it makes clear about the president himself. Simply put, it's no longer possible for reasonable observers to doubt the fact that something seems to be badly "wrong" with the sitting American president.

Now for the rest of the story:

No one could doubt or deny the fact that something seems to be wrong. No sane person could doubt or deny it, but We Blues almost certainly will!

Other parts of his recent conduct make this problem even more obvious. That said, We Blues are going to look away from this dangerous state of affairs.

In fairness, this is all part of the human condition. It's part of the imperfect wiring of our imperfect human species.

The Fox New News Channel is a giant slag heap, but We Blues are a piece of work too. Faces were frozen all through the hall.

We Blues aren't going to say that.

Tomorrow: "Other parts of his recent conduct make this problem even more obvious."


WEDNESDAY: Gabbard performed her last document dump!

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2026

Suzanne Scott took over from there: Just when you think you've seen it all, it turns out that you actually haven't. We refer to the remarkable claims made in the opening segment of last night's Gutfeld! program.   

The program started in typical fashion, with a handful of jokes on the standard smut-rich themes. One joke compared the women of The View to whales. 

Then too, viewers were handed the standard critique of Nancy Pelosi: 

GUTFELD (6/23/26): In economic news, Nancy Pelosi's net worth is down $8 million. 

Worse, her boobs are down nine inches.  

PHOTO: Pelosi in bathing suit 

Yes, that was one of the jokes. The studio audience laughed. 

This is the garbage can CEO Suzanne Scott opens each night on the Fox News Channel. Given the uniform silence of Blue America's major news orgs, this is also the garbage can our morally vacant Blue elites have uniformly chosen.   

Mercifully, this swill was concluded by 10:03. At that point, the host of the show started his "issue monologue" for the program's opening segment. 

For reasons which may seem weirdly obvious, Fox producers dropped all but the last two minutes from the videotape of the monologue which they posted on YouTube. As you can see by clicking here, that monologue started at 10:03, and it started like this:   

GUTFELD (6/23/26): All right. So on her way out the door, Tulsi Gabbard drops a nuclear document dump exposing Anthony Fauci's filthy legacy. And the mainstream press, those gutless, ball-less, nut-less, tit-less traitors, treat it like two points on a driver's license.   

That's what this nutcase said. 

Sounding a bit like a North Korean propaganda writer, the cable star said that Gabbard had exposed Dr. Fauci's "filthy legacy." But the tit-less traitors in the mainstream press were refusing to report what she'd done!

That's the way the cable star talks, and that's the way he started. Once again, it was time for Gutfeld and his all-star panel to brand Dr. Fauci as a mass murderer who needs to be shipped off to prison.  

The discussion had been triggered by Gabbard's latest, and mercifully last, document dump as DNIa document dump which Fox News Digital has largely ignored, perhaps for obvious reasons, along with their nut-less associates in the treasonous mainstream press.

For the record, Gabbard's latest document dump, and her accompanying accusations, have been fact-checked by CNN's Daniel Dale (just click here) and, in greater detail, by Lawfare's Renée DiResta (click this). On the other hand, Gutfeld had comedian Joe DeVito on hand, and DeVito told the world this: 

DIPAOLO: I think, lookwe were all locked down all this time [during Covid]. He should be locked down for a while too. 

He should be put in jail. I just wish I had faith that would happen, but when it comes to serial killers, seven million is a pretty good scoreway better than Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. That's the company Anthony Fauci is in.  

Yes, that's what he said. We know of no reason to believe that DeVito, or anyone else on Gutfeld's panel, had any idea what they were talking abouthad any realistic way of offering a serious analysis of the complex subject matter involved in this endless hunt.  

For the record Gutfeld's panel was composed of three comedians, plus Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade. As is the requirement on this imitation of life, all four voiced agreement with the indictment voiced by the program's host in the opening monologue==the monologue the Fox News Channel didn't seem to want to post.

Having said these things, we'll now strongly suggest that you should watch the presentation by comedian Tom Shillue, the panelist to whom Gutfeld turned first. You can do so by clicking here, then by continuing to click as Shillue's astounding indictment of Fauci proceeds. 

We know of no reason to believe that Shillue knows what he's talking about in any serious way. As for Gabbard herself, let us offer this excerpt from DiResta's fact check for Lawfare:  

DIRESTA (6/23/26): Gabbard’s “Fauci Files" follow the same playbook as her past document drops: Put the desired conclusion in the headline. Use “declassification” as a credibility signal. Present a large, mixed dump of documents as if they were a prosecutor’s exhibit. Convert ordinary government processes—expert consultation, grant oversight, whistleblower routing, intelligence disagreement—into evidence of conspiracy. Then push the accusation on social media, where few people will read the underlying documents closely enough to notice the gulf between the documents and the claims. 

Gabbard played this game of innuendo and accusation with her so-called “Russiagate” declassifications, accusing President Barack Obama of a "treasonous conspiracy” and “coup” (he has yet to be charged). A few weeks ago she followed the playbook with a document dump on biolabs, reframing biological threat reduction work, much of which was already public, as nefarious. In each case, the underlying materials contain some facts, but they are often decontextualized, and the framing asks readers to take a much larger conspiratorial leap.   

And so on, at length, from there. Needless to say, Gabbard's earlier claimher dramatic claim that President Obama engaged in treasonstill hasn't been acted on. We're going to guess that this latest effort is headed for the dumpster too, except on the truly deranged imitation of "cable news" performed on the Fox News Channel.    

We'll close by stating the obvious. The issues here are too complex to be accessible to all but a handful of citizens. In such circumstances, analysis becomes a game of "Who Do You Trust?"   

Gutfeld tells millions of people that they shouldn't trust the work of the tit-less traitors found in the mainstream press. Also, Rep. Pelosi's boobs have fallen nine inches, and the women of The Views are so fat they resemble whales. 

Suzanne Scott puts this swill on the air. Rachek Maddow won't say a word, Neither will the New York Times, or the Atlantic, or any of the opinion writers at those citadels of the Blue press.

Seriouslygo watch what Tom Shillue said! This is the "democratization of media" at its craziest and most dangerous.  

We leave you today with a question. Has a nation which tolerates this gong-show conduct already become a failed state?


DIAGNOSIS: This is no country for rational discourse!

FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2026

Three medical experts agree: This is no country for rational discourse.  

We've complimented Adam Kirsch for announcing that rarely acknowledged fact. He recently did so in The Atlantic

At this point, we link to his essay for the third and final time:

IDEAS
The Era of Rational Discourse Is Over
For Jürgen Habermas, who died in March, the essence of democracy was thoughtful back-and-forth argument. 

It would be hard to argue with Kirsch's principal thesisunless you argue, as a sane person might, that no era of rational discourse ever existed to start with.  

If some such era did exist, that era has plainly ended. We'll start today with something we saw, just yesterday, on this nation's most-watched "cable news" program.   

As a TV show, it's a smash hit. Airing at 5 p.m. each weekday, its audience is almost three times the size of the audience watching MS NOW's Deadline: White House in the same time slot.   

Yesterday, the election for Los Angeles mayor came under discussion on this Fox News Channel program. Here's the overview from the leading authority about one of the top three contenders:   

Nithya Raman 

Nithya V. Raman (born July 28, 1981) is an American urban planner, activist, and politician serving as the Los Angeles city councilmember for the 4th district since 2020. Raman, a member of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America, defeated incumbent councilmember David Ryu in 2020 and was re-elected in 2024.

[...]

Raman was born into a Tamil family in Kerala, India, and moved to Louisiana at 6 years old. She earned a bachelor's degree in political theory from Harvard University then a master's degree in urban planning from MIT.

After living in the United States for many years, Raman returned to her home country of India and founded the research firm Transparent Chennai. The firm's goal was to improve sanitation in the city of Chennai. In 2013, Raman moved to Los Angeles and worked for the city administrative officer of Los Angeles. In 2017, Raman founded and headed SELAH Neighborhood Homeless Coalition, a homelessness outreach nonprofit in Los Angeles; she also served as the executive director of Time's Up Entertainment. Raman became a naturalized American citizen at the age of 22.  

Back then, she was 22. Today, she's 44. Would she be a capable mayor?  We have no idea! 

On its face, Raman's resume seems impressive. But here's what millions of people were told about the impending mayoral election when the garbage can was opened yesterday afternoon and a cast of Unrecognizables suddenly appeared on their screens:  

WATTERS (5/7/26): The one woman, [incumbent mayor] Karen Bass, is like, "You know what? We did a great job with the fire."  

Are you kidding me? It's like Biden saying the border is secure! And then you have this "Raman"rhymes with noodlewhatever her name is. 

That's what this silly child actually said. Fumbling with the candidate's name, he had produced a wonderful play on the familiar supermarket product!  

Three hours later, he went there again, on his own "cable news" program:

WATTERS (5/7/26): L.A.'s no bueno. You see it and smell it. Karen Bass says, "Just keep your eyes forward and your nose closed. 

Nithya Raman, like the noodle, says, "Smell? What smell?"

Yes, he said it again! But so it goes within a society whose major figures, Red and Blue, have agreed that we will no longer try to be a country for rational discourse. 

(David French won't discuss this journalistic squalor. Neither will David Brooks, or Joe or Mika, or Rachel Maddow. No one at The Atlantic is going to say the names of these Fox News figures. Under current agreements, Corporate Red churns this garbage out, and Corporate Blue defers.)

Remarkably, Corporate Red has made Watters the most-watched "personality" in American "cable news." Sitting in the program's equivalent of the center square, he anchors The Five at 5 p.m. He then hosts his own show, Jesse Watters Primetime, three hours later. 

The Five is this nation's most-watched "cable news" show. Watters Primetime is second most-watched, and it's not real far behind. 

Gutfeld! comes on at 10 o'clock, 7 p.m. on the coast.  Last night's program started with a familiar insinuationthe insinuation that Hillary Clinton killed Jeffrey Epstein. That's just how this train wreck rolls.

It rhymes with noodle, today's Cronkite said. But then, this is no country for rational discourse, as Adam Kirsch noted. 

In all candor, this is no nation for such discourse even when large news orgs try. Such attempts aren't always successful, of course. But on May 5, in print editions, the New York Times did in fact tackle a relevant topic.

For the third time in less than two years, an assassination attemptor perhaps an attempt at such an attempthad been aimed at President Trump. 

If you watch The Five, you now see Gutfeld insist, on a nightly basis, that political violence only emerges from people on "the left."  

His ability to wish contrary examples away takes us the border of stone-cold mental disorder. But on May 5, Linda Qiu published a detailed report on this general subject. We call attention to one claim which appeared in her report:

The Facts on Political Violence and Threats to Presidents

A gunman’s breach of a Washington hotel where President Trump had gathered with hundreds of journalists over the weekend has reignited the debate over which political faction is more violent and which faces more threats.

[...]

An analysis in September of terrorist attacks from the 1990s through July 2025 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, found a similar trend: Right-wing terrorist attacks outpaced left-wing attacks from the 1990s to 2024. But, the analysis noted, 2025 was the first time in 30 years in which left-wing attacks outnumbered far-right attacks. That finding remained true through the end of 2025, the authors of the analysis said in an interview.

But they cautioned that it can be difficult to categorize the motivations of attackers as right wing or left wing. Many perpetrators have mental health issues, with indecipherable motives or conflicting beliefs. Attackers may also be driven by personal animus or a desire to seek fame, not necessarily a political goal. 

Really? People who ride choo-choo trains across the country in hopes of shooting government officials will often "have mental health issues?" Who would have imagined that something like that could possibly be the case? 

Setting aside everything else in Qiu's report, who could have imagined that? Certainly not the medical experts who soon popped up on our TV programs, eager to let us know that, even as the nation disintegrates, The Doctors are (very much) IN.

As we noted yesterday, the first experts to speak up were Doctors Watters and Gutfeld. Less than 48 hours after the Correspondents Dinner event, here's what these messengers said:

DR. WATTERS (4/27/26): What makes it so dangerous is these assassins are smarter. These aren't like low-IQ lunatics. If you look at the people that have targeted the president and other Republicans, it's not like they're hearing voices and are disassociated from reality. These are well-educated people who are politically involved.

[...]

The Democratic Party has become a violent revolutionary movement...Trump keeps kicking their butt, and they can't do anything about it. He's pursuing an ambitious America First agenda. So because they're powerless, what they're doing is inspiring their base to violently overthrow the government
Moments later, a second expert said this:
DR. GUTFELD (4/27/26): This guy was not a crank. He's not deranged. Don't buy into that narrative, because it lets these pompous asses off. 

He didn't do this because, as Jesse said— He didn't have voices in his head. He was just following orders. He was operating on a filter that said Trump was Hitler and it would be immoral if you didn't take Hitler out.  
Less than two days later, the medical experts / messenger children had their diagnosis. 

Cole Allen didn't have some sort of significant mental health problem, the pair of experts said. Apparently in Manchurian fashion, he was simply "following orders" from his vile Democratic handlers, whose cries of Hitler / Hitler / Hitler had told him to do what he did.

In even a slightly rational world, that would register as astonishing journalistic misconduct. But we don't live in any such world, as we learned five nights later.

It happened last Saturday night. We heard our young analysts scream and cry as they watched the CNN replay of Real Time with Bill Maher

Is Gutfeld writing Bill's stuff now? Here's what the analysts saw Bill say, in tandem with Gillian Tett:
DR. MAHER (5/1/26): This guy wasn’t crazy crazy. Like, you know, the dog wasn’t talking to him, and the moon. He just was, like, watching the
 
TETT: Social media.

MAHER: Yeah, and media media!

TETT: And media media, yeah.
Good God, that's thoroughly awful! But as with Fox News, so too here:

"Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler," Bill had said throughout.  He and Tett now seemed to agree:

Allen had been triggered by such claims. He'd been triggered by the claim that Trump = Hitler from the media media!

Bill gave no examples of any such recent statements by any such media figures. Neither did Gutfeld or Watters, of course. 

But all three knew that there was nothing really wrong with Cole Allen's mental health. Allen wasn't "crazy crazy," one of the specialists said.

All three of the doctors were IN. Fox News Channel? HBO? They all seemed to pimp the same line!  

Was this epistemic capture? Was it epistemic drift? Whatever it is, we can tell you this:

On several occasions during the week, the analysts had seen Watters and Gutfeld and the rest of the gang pushing this assortment of messages. And then, a few nights later, they settled in to watch Real Time with Bill Maher:

When they did, they saw Bill as he weirdly sold the same unsupported lines.

"What have they done with the real Bill Maher," the earnest young analysts asked. 

We thought they were asking a sensible question. Skillfully, though, we offered them this:
This is no country for rational discourse.
It was the one lonely thought we expressed!

For transcripts and videotape: To watch the full discussion on Real Time with Bill Maher, you can start by clicking here.

Partial transcripts and videotape of the Real Time discussion are available from Real Clear Politics and from Breitbart. Click this, or just click here.

ORDINARY PEOPLE: "I believe it was a fake attack!"

FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2026

So said we the people: King Charles and his once unlikely queen have gone back to jolly olde. If we could rent him as a replacement head of state, we'd strongly consider the prospect. 

Despite the absence of a ballroom, a dinner was held in honor of the royal pair. In this morning's New York Times, Elisabeth Bumiller reports the current state of our breakaway nation's rapidly failing union:  

What the Royal State Dinner Guest List Says About Trump’s America

Guest lists for White House state dinners have always been political rather than social documents. Avidly chewed over in Washington, they broadcast an administration’s priorities, favored businesses, top donors and media allies. They are supposed to reflect the country being honored.

By those standards, the Trump guest list for the state dinner for King Charles III of Britain and Queen Camilla on Tuesday night was another whack at norms in an administration that likes to shatter them.

Among the more than 100 guests were at least 10 American billionaires, six Fox News hosts, one Fox News executive, six conservative Supreme Court justices, numerous Silicon Valley tech titans and assorted friends of the president’s. There were no British cultural figures and, for that matter, a meager number of British overall. The British Embassy in Washington appears to have had limited input into the guest list.

There were also no Democratic politicians, which has been the case at other Trump state dinners.  

And so on from thereand so it appears to go

The six conservative justices were present at the dinner. The three liberal justices were not. 

There were no Democratic Party politicians. Six Fox News host were numbered among the guestsand that included the 47-year-old "silly boy" who says that he did this:   

‘You Said That? To the QUEEN?!’ Fox’s Jesse Watters Admits to Making Gun Violence Joke to Queen Camilla

Fox News hosts Jesse Watters and Greg Gutfeld were among the attendees at a White House state dinner with King Charles III and Queen Camilla this week, and they shared some eyebrow-raising comments about the event on Wednesday’s episode of The Five 

[...]   

According to The New York Times, the king and queen are both “avid supporters of beekeeping.” A new hive on the South Lawn was “crafted to look like the real White House,” the Times noted.

The king “had no idea who I was,” said Watters, continuing:

So I said, “I’m on Fox and I have two shows.” And he goes, “Well, they must really love you here.” And I said, “Yeah.”

So we go down, and there’s the queen. And I said, “Well, how was the beehive?” She goes, “It was very good. No one got stung.”

And then I said, “Well, you know in Washington, D.C., you know, the bees don’t get you, the guns will.”

“You said that? To the queen?!” Perino asked, shock evident in her voice as Watters covered his face with his hands. 

The silly child covered his face with his hands. This is the type of scripted inanity which helps animate the daily agitprop of The Five, this nation's most-watched "cable news" program.    

Corporate tools like Perino and Watters play these roles each day, with Gutfeld called upon to deliver one of his increasingly deranged hyper-partisan topical blasts. 

On Wednesday's edition of this astonishing "cable news" charade, Watters covered his face as he acknowledged his latest very bad conduct. This scripted inanity continues to score with us the American people, as the newest numbers make clear:  

Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters Dominate Cable News Ratings...

Fox News continued its cable news ratings dominance in April with hosts Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters pulling in the biggest numbers, while CNN and MS NOW also notched prime time gains.

In Monday through Sunday prime time total viewers, Fox averaged 2.9 million viewers...April marked Fox’s third-most-watched April in the network’s history, according to Nielsen data.

The biggest numbers came from The Five, which averaged 3.8 million viewers, and Jesse Watters Primetime, which averaged 3.6 million. Those were followed by Sean Hannity’s show at 3.2 million and Gutfeld! with 3 million. Bret Baier over on Special Report also averaged around 3 million viewers overall. 

Those five shows took the top five spots for cable news for the month. Watters and Gutfeld are both co-hosts of The Five as well as hosting their eponymous shows—easily making them the two most-watched personalities in the cable news business.  

Watters and Gutfeld continue to produce the biggest numbers in cable newsand yes, it is a (highly profitable) "business." 

On average, 3.8 million of us the people watch the imitation of life called The Five on a daily basis. The audience for Jesse Watters Primetime isn't far behind.

By way of contrast, the most watched weekly MS NOW showThe Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnellaveraged 1.6 million viewers for the month. MS NOW shows hosted by Nicolle Wallace, Chris Hayes and Jen Psaki averaged 1.3 or 1.4 million. Gutfeld! more than doubles that.

In fairness, Blue America's cable news is hardly a perfect productbut Red America's counterpart on the Fox News Channel is an imitation of life. The question we'd ask you is this:

Can "we the people" hope to attain "a more perfect union" when this channel continues to roll out clown cars filled with D-list comedians, former professional "wrestlers" and an endless assortment of Unrecognizables, topped by the towel-snapping apparent misogyny of Watters and Gutfeld?  

Can a more perfect union emerge despite that societal stress? Go aheadtake a good look around!

The presence of Watters and Gutfeld on these heavily watched TV shows is the braindead, poisoned fruit of the "democratization of media." 

In fairness, their braindead behavior is matched by that of the New York Times and The Atlantic and of Blue American royalty like Rachel Maddowby the refusal of these timorous, self-dealing souls to report and discuss the ugly inanity churned by the Fox News Channel for us, the American people.

At one time, we the people split into the Blue and the Gray. Today, we flounder ahead as we're encouraged to align as the Red and the Blue. 

Can a modern nation survive the corporate conduct which hands us this braindead spectaclethis daily assault on the possibility of seeking a more perfect union?   

At this point, a word must be said about us the peopleabout us the "ordinary" American people:

About the Reds who may not realize the way they're played by the likes of Perino and Watters. About the Blues who may not notice the way their own corporate leaders refuse to report and discuss the terrible plight into which we've been thrown by the spread of corporate entities like Fox, along with the rise of a podcast world built on this basic bromide: 

Every flyweight a king!

"No people are uninteresting," Yevtushenko passionately said. When a person dies, "what has gone is not nothing," this poet was willing to say.

He was thinking of the millions of "ordinary" people who lost their lives in the several madnesses which swept Europe in the middle of the last century.   

For the record, Yevtushenko had his detractors too. Years later, Robert Redford directed a deeply humane film called Ordinary People, followed by a second deeply humane film which further explored the lives of a similar group of such people. 

In that second film, a suffering teenage girl was badly in need of helpand she got it from a deeply humane older person. That Montana resident had special gifts, but he was an ordinary person too. 

There's no such thing as an "ordinary" person, Yevtushenko seemed to say. That said, we the peopleordinary allare almost always in need of some help.  

We need the help of people with gifts. We need the help of people with insight and wisdom.

We need the help of moral and intellectual leaders. In place of help from people like those, the Fox News Channelthe fruit of a poisoned "democratization"sends us Perino, Watters and Gutfeld each day, with Kat Timpf and the former "wrestler" dragging us down every night.

Last Saturday morning, at 7 a.m., C-Span's Washinton Journal began taking phone calls from us the American people. The callers are a self-selected group. They aren't a representative sample, extent to the extent that they possibly are.

On this occasion, it largely fell to people who tilted Blue to remind us of the fact that we the people, all of us, are almost always in need of help. We need to be led away from the irrational ideas which sometimes pop into our imperfect heads. 

In the film we've mentioned above, a suffering teenage girl needed the help of an empathic whisperer. On Saturday morning, quite a few callers, apparently from Blue America, were saying the events of the previous night had been staged.

Had someone tried to race past security at the Washington Hilton and stage an assault on President Trump or perhaps on Trump officials?

"I believe it was a fake attack," a caller from South Carolina soon said. Unhelpful, irrational ideas of that type can emerge, with remarkable speed, from us the American people.  

"I believe it was a fake attack?" Quite a few callers made similar comments like that during the program's first hour. Not far into the 8 o'clock hour, a caller from Michigan asked this about the previous night's event:

"Could it be that it was a law enforcement training exercise?"

Well no, it almost certainly wasn't! But ideas like that have a way of popping into our heads!

(Late in the 7 o'clock hour, a caller from Maryland took a different approach. She ridiculed those of us who "still believe that the January 6 thing was real.")

Over at the Fox News Channel, people like Perino help Watters and Gutfeld drive the disunion along. On The Five, Emily Compagno is now telling viewers that any events which may have seemed to feature violence or hatred on the part of MAGA types were really the equivalent of false flag events. They were all produced by the SPLC, Emily Compagno has now told the world, or something dimly like that.

Can anything like a union survive in the face of assaults of that type? Can anything like a union survive in the face of Blue American silence?

Attention, C-Span callers: On Sunday morning, Washington Journal took several hours of phone calls. You can watch and listen here.

"I believe it was a fake attack?" You can hear that call at 7:14. The next caller says she agrees.

Quite a few of us the people thought the attack at the Hilton seemed to be staged or fake. Many of these are good, decent people. That said, we the people can almost always benefit from good, sound people providing good, sound leadership in the form of their badly needed wisdom and general help.

Our broadcasters and presidents have sometimes done that. Other times, not so much!


SORROW, PITY, OUTRIGHT FEAR: Should we the people be concerned...

MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2026

...about the president's (mental) health? We'll start the week with a basic question. As we do, we'll be starting to wind down the past several weeks of reports.

As we start the week, our basic question is this:

Should American citizens be concerned about the state of the president's mental health? More directly, should American citizens be fearfulfrightened, afraidabout his mental health?

We refer to any possible cognitive decline, but also to any possible "mental illness." And because the language of "mental illness" is often taken to be, and is frequently offered as, the ultimate form of insult, we want to start the week by restating some basic conceptual points:

A mental illness is, in fact, an illness:

In our view, a (serious) "mental illness" is, in fact, an illness. 

When someone is diagnosed with a significant "mental illness," that's a diagnosis of an actual illness. It isn't simply a shorthand way of saying that the person's behavior is very bad.  

Some such diagnosis is a diagnosis of a personal tragedy, as would be the case with a serious "physical" illness. The assertion of a possible "mental illness" shouldn't be seen as an insult.

Also this:   

A mental illness frequently is a physical illness:

"Mental illnesses" frequently have a physiological component. The leading authority on mental illness prefers the emerging term "mental disorder." But this is one part of its overview:  

Mental disorder   

A mental disorder, also referred to as a mental illness, a mental health condition, or a psychiatric disability, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. A mental disorder is also characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotional regulation, or behavior, often in a social context.

[...]  

For a mental state to be classified as a disorder, it generally needs to cause dysfunction. Most international clinical documents use the term mental "disorder", while "illness" is also common. It has been noted that using the term "mental" (i.e., of the mind) is not necessarily meant to imply separateness from the brain or body. 

A "mental illness" isn't necessarily disconnected from the brain (a physical organ) or the body. For example, in its discussion of antisocial personality disorder (colloquially, "sociopathy"), the leading authority says this:

Antisocial personality disorder

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is a personality disorder defined by a chronic pattern of behavior that disregards the rights and well-being of others. People with ASPD often exhibit behavior that conflicts with social norms, leading to issues with interpersonal relationships, employment, and legal matters. The condition generally manifests in childhood or early adolescence, with a high rate of associated conduct problems and a tendency for symptoms to peak in late adolescence and early adulthood. 

[...]  

Research into genetic associations in antisocial personality disorder suggests that ASPD has some or even a strong genetic basis. The prevalence of ASPD is higher in people related to someone with the disorder. Twin studies, which are designed to discern between genetic and environmental effects, have reported significant genetic influences on antisocial behavior and conduct disorder. 

As its overview continues, the leading authority goes into some detail about the "specific genes" which may be involved in the development of this disorder. Simply put, an unfortunate child may perhaps inherit the physiological condition which correlates with ASPD. 

We've advised you to pity that childbut also to be deeply concerned about where his conduct may lead.

Certain forms of "mental illness" may be surprisingly prevalent:

We'll guess that most people would be surprised by the prevalence of certain "mental disorders" (forms of "mental illness"). In the overview about ASPD to which we've already linked, the leading authority offers this statement concerning the prevalence of ASPD (colloquially, "sociopathy"): 

The estimated lifetime prevalence of ASPD amongst the general population falls within 1% to 4%, skewed towards 6% men and 2% women. 

As we've noted in the past, that six percent figure (among men) is apparently derived from major studies of this "mental disorder." We'll guess that many people would be surprised by that alleged degree of prevalence.

Obviously, that figure doesn't mean that six percent of adult men are the equivalent of Hannibal Lecter. It does mean that some version of this "mental disorder" ("mental illness") is less rare than many people may think.

You're reading this here for a reason:

Please understand:

No one at this site is a medical specialist. No one at this site is experienced in the diagnosis and treatment of various "mental disorders."

You're reading these observations here because our upper-end press corps has sworn that they will never interview the medical specialists who could, at least in theory, offer detailed understanding of these basic points. For better or worse, the state of play is this:

Our journalists have agreed to adhere to a code of silence about matters of "mental illness," at least with respect to major political figures like the sitting president.

When it comes to an important matter like this, we the people have been left on our own.

We've advised you to pity the child who may be afflictedperhaps through genetic inheritance!in the deeply unfortunate ways we've described. That said, some medical specialists have said that the sitting president is afflicted in these ways, and that this state of affairs should be viewed as extremely dangerous.

Full disclosure! We know of no reason to believe that this possibility will ever be discussed in the New York Times, or in The Atlantic, or on The Last Word or The Rachel Maddow Show

Major news orgs and individual journalists simply aren't going to go there.  Example: When Mary L. Trump stated her view on CNN in late February, the interview ended right there, and it was never mentioned again!

That said, an obvious question seems to prevail:

Should we the people be concerned about the president's "mental health?" More to the point, should we the people be actively fearful about that matter?

Way back in the president's first term, some major medical specialists said the answer was clearly yes.  The fact that they said it doesn't make it true, but that's what those specialists said.

This week, we'll finish our review of these matters. As a general matter, we've advised you to pity the child, but also to consider the possibility of fearing his behavior.

Remember:

You're reading about this topic at this site for a somewhat unusual reason. For better or worse, our high-end journalists have agreed on a basic point:
This topic must never be discussed! It simply isn't done!
We the people have been left on our own. We'll review some basic points during the rest of the week.

Tomorrow: Correctly or otherwise, this was an early warning


JEREMIAD(S): The pastors were speaking to the whole world!

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2026

So was the disordered Herr Gutfeld: Today, we turn to jeremiad as our communication mode of choice. 

"Look over here," such declamations say. As we noted yesterday, the current jeremiads in question were those delivered right here:

HAYMES (3/17/26): First and foremost, we pray that a man like this will be cut to the heart. My wife and I were talking about this in the car the other day...

Public enemies—these are the orcs at the gate. You are not called to love the barbarian horde that is planning to break into your city and, you know, pillage, plunder, rape and mutilate you and your people. You don't love that horde. That is your enemy, and this is where you have imprecatory psalms. This is where you pray, strongly. 

The Psalmist is not shy. "God, destroy them. Make them as dung on the ground," right?  Madison and I were talking about that...

I pray that God kills him. Ultimately, that means killing his heart and raising him up to new life in Christ. That's the first thing.

POTTEIGER: Right. We want him crucified with Christ. 

HAYMES: That's exactly right. 

That was just part of the declamation. As we noted yesterday, Haymes had been talking it over in the car with his wife.

Who did these fellows want to be "made as dung on the ground?" As we noted yesterday, the target "orc at the gate" was James Talarico, the 36-year-old Texas Democrat who is his party's nominee for John Cornyn's Texas Senate seat. 

Can Talarico possibly win that seat? We have no idea! But he traces his own Christianity to some things he says he learned from his maternal grandfather, a Baptist preacher in South Texas. He says his grandfather taught him this:

Love God, and love your neighbor.

Along the way, Talarico has said some things that have Messrs. Haymes and Pottinger hoping to see him made as dung. To cite one example, he has said that God is nonbinaryneither male nor female! 

Last week the children on the Fox News Channel were reeling about that claim. On the other hand, a letter to the Washington Post offered this milder reaction to what Talarico had said:  

A narrow-minded attack on James Talarico’s religion 

James Talarico sets out a vision of Christianity that can be embraced by people who were raised in fundamentalist denominations but no longer feel at home there because our experiences and science-based learning have taken us beyond the doctrines of our native churches. For us, the alternative would be to leave Christianity altogether. Talarico gives us hope that there is a future for us inside Christianity. 

When Talarico says “God is nonbinary,” he is not making some new liberal pronouncement; he is restating traditional Christian teaching as reflected in the Catholic Catechism: “God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God.” 

[...] 

[J. C. F.], Austin 

Can that highlighted claim possibly be accurate? Also, does it actually matter in the current context? 

Concerning only the first of those questions, Brent Barry offers this for the Baptist News Global site:

Fact checking three things James Talarico said

James Talarico was a child when I was on the pastoral staff of his church for a year. We attended the same seminary, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

I want to look at three of the things he has said that I see going most viral.

“God is nonbinary”

When Moses asks God’s name, God doesn’t say “father” or “king.” God says I AM: existence itself, beyond human definition. The Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century, hardly progressive revolutionaries, were careful to insist that God transcends human categories, including gender. 

This isn’t liberalism. It’s classical Christian theology.

[...]

Paul reminds us we see through a glass darkly. Any confident claim to fully contain or define God should give us pause. Acknowledging the limits of human language about God isn’t radical. It’s orthodox humility. 

On the other hand, who you gonna believe? Classical Christian theology, or the Fox News Channel's master blowhard, Tyrus?

Within the current political context, each person gets to decide if such topics actually matter. Plainly, they matter to Haymes and to Potteigerbut should the jeremiads they delivered on Haymes' podcast actually matter to us? 

To its credit, the New York Times has tackled this sudden news event. The paper did so yesterday, in this news report. 

Yesterday, we ourselves skillfully asked what Haymes and Potteiger were praying for. Were they praying for Talarico's death or for Talarico's conversion? 

What were the gentlemen praying for? We offer excerpts from the Times' news report:

A Pastor Called for a Democrat to Be ‘Crucified With Christ.’ Was It a Threat?

James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Texas, responded on Wednesday to a pastor who had suggested he should be “crucified with Christ” as part of a conversion, saying in a statement, “I love you more than you could ever hate me.” 

[...]

Responding to the remark, Mr. Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian, emphasized compassion, a core theme of his campaign, and suggested that Mr. Potteiger was praying he would die. Mr. Potteiger and a representative for Mr. Hegseth said the pastor’s words were being twisted. Mr. Potteiger said he had not called for Mr. Talarico’s death, but rather called for him to have a religious conversion....

“I did not call for his death,” Mr. Potteiger said in an interview with The New York Times. “I called for his conversion.” 

[...]

Mr. Haymes said in an interview that he and Mr. Potteiger had not been calling for violence and that they had been speaking to a Christian audience.

He called Mr. Talarico a “liar,” accusing him of seeking to “weaponize the ignorance of the masses” to target him and Mr. Potteiger.

“I want him to repent and to follow Christ,” Mr. Haymes said.

Haymes had only the best intentions! The problem arises with the claim that he and Pastor Potteiger had been "speaking to a Christian audience."

Sorry, Charlie! Given the "democratization of media"given the nature of the new technologiesit's very, very, very silly to imagine some such thing.

Haymes was no longer in a storefront church, speaking to forty followers, something which has always been part of the American experience. Instead, he had placed his remarks on the world-wide web through the magic of modern podcasting. 

His jeremiad was (and is) available to everyone on the planet! As we all understand, some of those people are deeply, tragically disturbedand we know that it only takes one. 

Last Thursday, on an imitation of a "cable news" show, Greg Gutfeld also played this potentially dangerous game. He too was utilizing a new technology. He was appearing on (an imitation of) a "cable news" show.

Greg Gutfeld is just a persona person like everyone else. It's been our view that he could use (and that he deserves) some help, and that his corporate employer should be the one to provide it.

(Hank Williams: "I was just a ladnearly 22. Neither good nor bad, just a kid like you."

In our view, Gutfeld is saddled with limited judgment. He has legitimate complaints to make, but he tends to make them in the ugliestand dumbestpossible fashion. Presumably, that's what his corporate employer actually wants him to do. 

Last Tuesday, before comparing Talarico to Ted Bundy, a human being just like you offered this unsupported,  rambling rant. We'd score what follows as tragically hapless:

GUTFELD (3/17/26): The problem with Talaricoand I'm surprised, Jessica [Tarlov], that you don't see this. And maybe you do, but you don't want to, because he's on your side. I can't read your mind.

But his biggest division isn't in gender or politics, it's belief.  You know, if you don't believe as he does, you are evil. 

You know, Christians and Jews, they divide by behavior. You can be a bad Christian. You can be a bad Jew.

But that doesn't happen with someone like Talarico. It doesn't matter if you're a good, decent person. If you believe in two sexes, you are evil.

Gutfeld continued from there, explaining that Talarico is ready to declare grandfathers and parents "evil," along with "the nice people who would help you fix a tire." 

"It didn't matter what their behavior was like. It was that their belief was evil. This is what happens with progressives," the messenger boy now said.

As you can see by clicking this, his jeremiad continued:

GUTFELD: This guy speaks a good game, but if he doesn'tif he doesn't like your beliefs, it doesn't matter how good you are. He's as extreme as a radical Islamist, because that's how they think as well, because his values are not based on behavior. 

And that is something you have to understand when you listen to them. You can get lost in all that rhetoric"My values are the same." 

That guy's bad news. And you're gonna find out.

So the screed went. Moments later, Gutfeld said he's "getting Ted Bundy vibes" from James Talarico. 

In case you've forgotten, Bundy "was an American serial killer who kidnapped, raped and murdered dozens of young women and girls between 1974 and 1978."

To double-check that, just click here. But yes! That's what Gutfeld now said!

"At long last," a person might ask, "has the Fox News Channel no sense of decency left?" But then, a person might ask the same thing about the legion of Blue American journalists and "news orgs" who refuse to report or discuss this astounding public misconduct.

Does James Talarico believe that you and your grandparents are "evil" if you don't share his theological beliefs? Gutfeld said it again and again, while presenting exactly zero evidence in support of that ugly claim.

He compared Talarico to "radical Islamists," then compared him to Ted Bundy. Moments later, up jumped Emily Compagno, with dreams of David Koresh banging around in her head.

The New York Times? The Atlantic? MS NOW? Rachel Maddow or Lawrence O'Donnell? Mika and/or Joe?

Have you ever seen those cowardly kittens say even a single word about the ugly, braindead mayhem routinely broadcast by Fox? 

When Fox News broadcasts its jeremiads, they too are no longer confined to a little storefront church. They're speaking to everyone everywhere all at once, and they're actively bringing our failing culture down. 

As they do, our Blue American cowardly kittens refuse to say the first word. They won't even say their names!

"Wouldn't be prudent," we'll guess.

Tomorrow or Saturday: Her "second cousin, once removed" did in fact notably serve