FRIDAY: As heard on Gutfeld! and The Five!

FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2026

Emily Compagno speaks: Has the Southern Poverty Law Center committed some sort of criminal act?  

We have no way of answering that question. But as you may know, the DOJ announced this indictment back on April 21, as NBC News reported:  

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on charges that it fraudulently paid informants in extremist groups

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Tuesday announced an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, alleging the civil rights organization has engaged in financial crimes.    

Blanche said at a news conference that the Justice Department’s investigation found the organization had been “manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred,” and then hiding those payments.

The 11-count indictment from a federal grand jury consists of six counts of wire fraud, four counts of false statements to a federally insured bank and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center’s ('SPLC') stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country. However, unbeknownst to donors, some of their donated money was being used to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance,” the indictment alleges. 

[...]  

Bryan Fair, interim chief executive of the SPLC, said in a statement that the organization is still reviewing the charges but that after witnessing the Justice Department’s news conference they are “outraged by the false allegations.”

And so on from there. For the record, that's what the indictment alleges

For ourselves, we have no particular faith in indictments brought by the current DOJ, or in statements by Acting Attorney General Blanche. This is the same DOJ which has recently indicted James Comey again, on a widely ridiculed charge. 

That said, we'll wait to see what comes to light if this case really goes to trial. 

For today, we thought we'd show you what we meant with a recent reference to Emily Compagno, a frequent co-host on The Five, the nation's most watched "cable news" program.   

Reaction to this indictmentto these allegationswas swift within the MAGA realm. As Mediaite reports, the sitting president saw it as the latest way to advance the never-ending claim that the 2020 election had been stolen:   

Trump Demands 2020 Election ‘Be Wiped From the Books’ If New SPLC Case Proves ‘True’   

President Donald Trump called for the 2020 presidential election to “be permanently wiped from books and be of no further force or effect” if new fraud charges brought by the Justice Department against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) prove “true.”

The president unloaded on the prominent civil rights group in the early hours of Friday morning and described the organization as “one of the greatest political scams in American History”  

[...]  

The president then shared two memes and screengrabs of posts from Elon Musk about the SPLC allegations.   

And so on from there.

In fairness, even the president said he's willing to wait to see if the allegations are actually shown to be true. In several appearances on Gutfeld! and The Five, Compagno has shown no such reticence. 

For all we know, Compagno may be the finest person on earth among her family and friends. On cable TV, she is strongly inclined to make absurd statements like the one she made this Monday night, there on the Gutfeld! program.  

The panel was discussing the previous weekend's attempted assassination attempt at the Washington Hilton. Compagno was present at the Correspondents Dinner, like the mainstream journalists whose alleged attacks on President Trump, or so she said, had led to the assassination attempt

Near the end of a somewhat jumbled presentation, she absurdly offered this:

COMPAGNO (4/27/26): [Mainstream journalists] have the nerve to distance themselves from any culpability whatsoever [for the assassination attempt]. And then they say things like, "Well, the right extremists, that's the real danger." When we have learned that the right extremist danger was manufactured this entire time by the left-wing extremist danger, funded by SPLC. 

Based on that recent untested indictment, Compagno seemed to say that any apparent right-wing violence in recent years was really an artefact of the conduct of the Southern Poverty Law Center! A few days later, she made a similar representation when she appeared as a guest on The Five

This ludicrous claim is starting to spread within Fox News Channel circles.  When we the people watch these "cable news" shows, we're fed this pitiful gruel.

Compagno may be the nicest person on earth among her family and friends. She belongs on the nation's most-watched "cable news" programs in much the waywell, let's just leave it at that.

These Fox News Channel programs are undisguised imitations of life. So too with the major Blue American news orgs and journalists who refuse to report on these deeply destructive programs.

More tape: To watch that full segment from Monday evening's Gutfeld! show, you can 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!


THURSDAY: How did it [ever] get this far?

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2026

The Louisiana congressional district case: Good luck trying to understand yesterday's Supreme Court ruling.   

We refer to the ruling in the recent series of court cases involving the attempt to create an acceptable set of House districts in Louisiana. There is no doubt that the ruling may have significant consequences, and not just in Louisiana. 

But what the heck did the ruling hold? And what legal reasoning was offered?

Last evening, we were struck by the difficulty cable news hosts were having as they tried to explain the ruling. That was true on the PBS NewsHour, but also on CNN's Laura Coates Live, whose host started off like this:

COATES (4/29/26): My opening statement tonight: 

Today, six justices all but threw away the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, they left the words on the paper, but they erased the meaning, the way poll taxes and literacy tests and jellybean counting tried to negate the 15th Amendment that gave Black people the right to vote. 

Why? Because voting is the single most important power in a democracy, not just the act of going to the polls and filling in some bubbles. No. It's the ability to vote for your candidate of choice.

Already, that presentation was rather fuzzy. Coates continued as shown:

COATES (continuing directly): Now, you are not entitled to vote for the winner, but gerrymandering districts can mean that your power is so watered down that you never even had a chance to choose who represents you or pretends to. And to Louisiana. The court struck down its map today, saying that lawmakers illegally used race to draw a majority Black district.

At the heart of the ruling was Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act that LBJ signed. And before I explain Section 2, why don't you listen to what LBJ said when he signed it into law?

PRESIDENT JOHNSON (1965): Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American in his heart can justify.

COATES: "Ensure them the right to vote." Section 2, it tried to prevent racial gerrymandering precisely because it diluted voting power. And that's now all but out the window...   

When LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act into law, it was indeed intended to ensure the right to vote for the nation's black citizens. There would be no more "poll taxes and literacy tests and jellybean counting" as an array of Southern states tried to keep an old world alive. 

That said: 

Whatever the eventual result of yesterday's ruling may turn out to be, the ruling doesn't mean, in the most obvious sense, that states can return to the practices which deny citizens the right to vote. 

Black citizens of Louisiana will be able to vote for president and for governor. They'll be able to vote for senator for the congressional representative from their district. 

President Johnson's statement stands. The issue here is differentand journalists are already having a hard time explaining what it is.  

For the record, Section 2 of the VRA was extremely brief in its initial form. This is what Section 2 said when the VRA was signed into law:  

SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. 

Way back then, that was all that Section 2 saidand given the gruesome practices still in effect in various states, it was a long overdue pushback against the destructive ways of the past.

Will tomorrow's ruling turn out to be newly destructive? That where the current debate needs to start. And by the way, the VRA's original Section 2 has long since been amended. It's been augmented by additional languageby language which is perhaps rather fuzzy, as congressional language can be.  

Our journalists are already struggling with the task of explaining yesterday's ruling. A lot of heat is going to be generated, though perhaps a bit less light.  

People feel strongly about this matter; there's no reason why they shouldn't. Results of this ruling may turn out to be highly undesirable, depending on your viewpoint. 

That said:

Our nation, which is falling apart, currently tends to work in accord with the brilliant anthropological framework given voice by Professor Brabender:

Where I come from, we only talk so long. After that, we start to hit.

In our view: In its basic news report, the Washington Post did a good job summarizing the string of recent court cases in Louisiana which brought us to this place.


PEOPLE NEEDING PEOPLE: Whatever became of the war with Iran?

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2026

The speed of our failing discourse: "Back out of all this now too much for us?"  

Isn't it true that we the people are now caught in such a place? With that impression in mind, we restate this week's basic questionthe question which should be torturing Americans' dreams:

Under current circumstances, do we the people have what it takes to create a more perfect Union? I Even to attempt to do so? 
Indeed, are we the people living in any sort of Union at this point in time?   

Are we the people built for the task of finding our way "back out of all this now too much for us?" We'd say the answer tilts toward no. Consider the past five days:   

Last Saturday night, at the Washington Hilton, the national discourse suddenly changed. A 31-year-old Californian staged an attempt at an assassination attempt. We were surprised by the (unhelpful?) way Bret Stephens described this man in his recent New York Times column:

The Banality of Evil, Again

President Trump erupted in anger at the CBS journalist Norah O’Donnell after she read him excerpts from what is said to be a manifesto written by Cole Tomas Allen, the man charged with trying to kill Trump at Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Some conservatives seem to think no good can be served from reading these words, but that’s a mistake: It’s always useful to be reminded, again, of the banality of evil.

The distinguishing feature of the manifesto is its insipidity. “I am a citizen of the United States,” Allen writes. “What my representatives do reflects on me.” Later, he justifies the possibility that he might harm the people in the ballroom “on the basis that most people chose to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist and traitor, and are thus complicit,” although he adds that “I really hope it doesn’t come to that.”

The manifesto lays out five objections to what he is about to attempt—starting with “As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek”—followed by his brief rebuttals. The impression is less of a person struggling with an anguished conscience than of someone not bright enough to come up with objections that would force anything but glib self-justification.   

It's true! Allen did create a type of "manifesto." It offers nothing like a convincing justification for the enormity of the act he haplessly attempted to attempt.  

To Stephens, Allen isn't especially bright. He's glib, insipid, banal, eviland, without any doubt, a person can see it this way. 

A person can see it that way. Or does Allen more closely resemble the portrait painted in the passage below? 

Headline included, we show you what a Dartmouth professor said about people like Allen in an interview with Sabrina Tavernise of that same New York Times:  

Is the U.S. in a Politically Violent Age? What the Data and History Say

A question that seems to be on everyone’s mind after the third assassination attempt on President Trump on Saturday is whether the country has entered into a new, dangerous phase of political violence, and what that would mean for the country.

I talked with Sean Westwood, a professor of government at Dartmouth College and fellow at the Hoover Institution who tracks acts of violence and the reaction to them. Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length.   

[...]

WESTWOOD: The individuals who commit these acts are lone wolves. Largely mentally ill, largely male, largely younger. The thing that seems to connect them is not ideology—it’s anger. Most do not leave a manifesto. We’re left to reconstruct it from their internet history, from their social media, from text messages with friends.

A really good example is Thomas Crooks, the first one to try to assassinate President Trump. He was searching for candidates on both sides of the aisle. He just seemed to be lashing out against society. So in that way, Cole Tomas Allen is a bit of an outlier because he did provide a clear explanation for his actions. 

 What should we think about Cole Allen? Is he "banal, insipid, not especially bright?" Or might he instead be viewed as being "mentally ill?"  

In truth, when it comes to "not especially bright," we all tend to fit that description, at least on certain occasions. 

As we've noted in recent weeks, our American discourse features extremely limited comprehension of the basic concept of "mental illness." We're amazed to see someone as smart as Stephens offering an instant portrait of Allen without seeming to imagine the possibility that he may be "mentally ill."  

(The alleged January 6 pipe bomber, Brian Cole Jr., is said to be severely autistic. Reportedly, he was influenced by President Trump's rhetoric about the 2020 election being stolen when he staged his own failed attempt at a violent act.)

With respect to the branch of medical science concerned with "mental illness," we apply its concepts in certain situations, run from it in others. As a people, "we the people" aren't especially bright when it comes to that sprawling branch of modern medical science, as we may even see when Stephens says this about the sitting president, then say nothing more:

[Later in Stephens' column]
The degree to which facts have become hard to disentangle from conspiracy theories is one of the depressing hallmarks of the age. So is the relentless hyperbole about the president’s alleged destruction of democracy. But conservatives should be wary of pointing fingers here. Who is it, after all, who tried to delegitimize not one but two Democratic presidents, the first through preposterous claims about a fake birth certificate, the second through outrageous falsehoods about a stolen election? 

Tomorrow, we'll turn to our society's "depressing" conspiracy theories. As for the sitting president, has spent more than five years advancing the unfounded claim that the 2020 election was stolen. Before that, he spent five years insulting the American project by claiming that Barack Obama had been born in Kenya.  

Millions of people in our flailing nation still believe those claims. We'll take a guess: 

Cole Allen was, in fact, bright enough to know that those endless claims are false. But being some form of "mentally ill," he took a train across the country and tried to settle the matter right there.  

Allen's attempt at an assassination attempt was instant major news. It quickly replaced the war in Iran (remember that?) in the forefront of American discourse.   

In that sense, it came at a propitious time for supporters of the sitting president. On the Fox News Channel, Allen's attempt seemed to be seized upon as a way to push Iran out of the discourse. 

The channel's army of messengers also seized upon a joke by Jimmy Kimmel from last Thursday night. They have seized upon 1) the latest indictment of James Comey and 2) an indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center as topics whichor so the channel's flock of birds sayshow that the American project is deeply endangered by what "the Democrat [sic] Party" and its handmaidens have persistently done.   

Yesterday, along came the Supreme Court decision about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Hopelessly complicated attempts at explanation have crowded Blue America's major news orgs in the wake of that decision.   

The topic is almost surely too complex to be explained by American journalists, none more so than the overmatched people we saw yesterday on our own Blue American cable news channels. 

(Concepts were too hard to explain. Some thumbs did get placed on some scales.)

Long ago and far awaywe take you back to March 2000Mickey Kaus wrote a series of columns in Slate about the astonishing speed of the evolving public discourse, under then-current arrangements. Here's something Kaus said at the time:   

The news cycle is much faster these days, thanks to 24-hour cable, the Web, a metastasized pundit caste constantly searching for new angles, etc. As a result, politics is able to move much faster, too, as our democracy learns to process more information in a shorter period and to process it comfortably at this faster pace. 

Part of that was true! Even way back then, the news cycle was already much faster, thanks to 24-hour cable news and thanks to the very early rise of the Web.

The cycle was already much faster! By now, though, the "current circumstances" to which we've referred include some monsters of discourse as thes

Fruits of democratization: 
Totally partisan, round-the-clock talk radio
Totally partisan "cable news" channels 
Totally partisan Web sites
Podcasts run by every manner of "influencer." A podcast culture within which, for better or worse, it's "Every flyweight a king."

The Fox News Channel floods its air with "wrestlers" and comedians. Blue America's major orgs refuse to report or discuss what happens on the Fox News Channeland our own absurd behaviors have contributed to the general meltdown.   

Are we the people built for the task of handling this conceptual chaos? Are we built for the task of creating a more perfect Unionof creating any Union at allin the face of this non-stop American Babel?

Are we the people built for that task? At 7 o'clock on Sunday morning, C-Span's Washington Journal opened its phone lines to us the people, and the calls which came in about the previous night's events helped show the challenge we're facing.

What did we the people think Cole Allen's assassination attempt? C-Span viewers shared their ideasand n our view, on conclusion was quickly apparent: 

We the people need the guidance of wise, intelligent gatekeepers. We're people badly needing people, as people always have been.

Whatever became of the war with Iran? On Fox, it was sent away.

The claims and topics and talking points come amazingly thick and fast at this point. Most of these claims are hapless, inane. At this very late date, is anyone among us the people really sufficiently "bright?" 

Tomorrow: We promise! What we the people said!


WEDNESDAY: Sitting president poses with gun!

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2026

Supreme Court wrestles with race: We're so old that we can remember last weekend, when people were upset about the attempt to create a mass shooting incident at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.  

That seems to have been then, and this seems to have turned into now. This morning, the sitting president posted his latest extremely strange Truth Social post. Headline included, here's the start of Mediaite's report:

Trump Vows ‘No More Mr. Nice Guy’ in 4 AM Iran Threat Featuring Image of Himself With Gun

President Donald Trump issued a new threat to Iran early Wednesday, posting an AI-generated image of himself holding an assault rifle alongside the blunt message: “No more Mr. Nice Guy!”

The image, shared on Truth Social just after 4 a.m. ET, showed the gun-wielding president in a dark suit and sunglasses, standing before a backdrop of explosions tearing through a hillside.

“Iran can’t get their act together,” Trump wrote. “They don’t know how to sign a nonnuclear deal. They better get smart soon!”  

The report continues from there. For the record, he's posing with a very big gun, as you can see if you click to the Mediaite report.

In our view, it seems that something may be wrong with the sitting president. The sitting Blue American press corps refuses to discuss it.  

He posted the image at 4 a.m. The image shows him posing with a very large gun. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is once again trying, for the ten millionth time, to find a way to explain the permissible role of race in the creation of congressional districts. 

As usual, today's ruling involves the state of Louisiana's six congressional districtstwo of which would be "majority-minority" in the proposed map under review. 

In a 6-3 vote, that proposed map has now been struck down. Headline included, here's the way the AP report begins:   

Supreme Court weakens a landmark Civil Rights-era law and aids GOP efforts to control the House   

The Supreme Court on Wednesday weakened a landmark Civil Rights-era law that has increased minority representation in Congress and elsewhere, striking down a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana and opening the door for more redistricting across the country that could aid Republican efforts to control the House.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority found that Louisiana district represented by Democrat Cleo Fields relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the 6th Congressional District as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.

“That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six conservatives.

The effect of the ruling may be felt more strongly in 2028 because most filing deadlines for this year’s congressional races have passed. Louisiana, though, may have to change its redistricting plan to comply with the decision.   

The report continues from there, with comments, pro and con, about the 6-3 ruling. As a first stab at a summary, the AP report seems to be saying something like this:

Louisiana created an oddly configured district to make it more likely that a black candidate would win a seat in the House. According to the Court's majority ruling, the proposed district results from a type of gerrymander which is banned by the Constitution.  

We expect to return to this topic when full reports have been filed by the nation's major newspapers. Here's why:

We've never seen a major policy topic where so much impenetrably fuzzy language is employed by partisans on all sides. (In this case, it sounds like the Alito opinion may be fairly straightforward, though that could turn out to be a mirage.) 

At this difficult, dangerous time, we Americans are finding it increasingly hard to function as "a people." Who will speak clearly on this matter? Will anyone in these impoverished times show up with that type of skill?

The sitting president has now chosen to pose with a great big giant gun. Who among uswhat new birth of Abraham Lincolnwill present, at this difficult time, with the gift of clear, comprehensible speech? 

("Back out of all this now too much for us?" We believe that Robert Frost sought a way back out of all that!)


PEOPLE: The very next morning, we the people...

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2026

...began making phone calls to C-Span: Under current circumstances, are "we the people" up to the challenge of creating "a more perfect union?"   

Do we want President Lincoln's "mystical chords" to bind us together as friends? Or are we now engaged in a great civil war with our tribal enemies, Red America battling with Blue?   

You're asking excellent questions! For the record, the current circumstances to which we refer include the disappearance of the gatekeepersof the Walter Cronkites and the David Brinkleysin the wake of the "democratization of media" over the past forty years. 

That "democratization" was the fruit of a technological explosion which has replaced the Cronkites and the Brinkleys with such "opinion leaders" as Greg Gutfeld and Tyrusand with the shaky judgment of our current crop of comedians and podcasters, a few of whom are referenced here:

The Man Show

The Man Show [was] an American sketch comedy television show on Comedy Central that aired from 1999 to 2004. It was created by its two original co-hosts, Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel, and their executive producer Daniel Kellison. The pilot was originally paid for and pitched to ABC, which declined to pick up the show.

The Man Show simultaneously celebrated and lampooned the stereotypical loutish male perspective in a sexually charged, humorous light. The show consisted of a variety of recorded comedy sketches and live in-studio events, usually requiring audience participation. The Man Show was a career breakthrough for Kimmel.

The Man Show is particularly well known for its buxom female models, the Juggy Dance Squad, who would dance in themed, revealing costumes at the opening of every show, in the aisles of the audience just before The Man Show went to commercial break, and during the end segment "Girls on Trampolines".

[...]

In 2003, Kimmel and Carolla left The Man Show, with the hosting jobs passed down to comedians Joe Rogan and Doug Stanhope. The new pair hosted the show for two more seasons before it ceased production in 2004. 

 All in all, there it is. It was Kimmel and Rogan and the Juggy Dance Squad oh my! 

Speaking from a Blue perspective, extremely poor judgment was on vivid display with this show. Today, Rogen is one of our failing nation's most prominent Cronkite Replacement Figures. 

Kimmel is the latest in a long line of Tinseltown strivers who keep supplying the RNC, and today the Fox News Channel, with endless distractions and talking points.   

For the record, Cronkite and Brinkley were serious, deeply experienced people. They were part of the generation of Americans to whom President Kennedy referred in his famous inaugural address:   

PRESIDENT KENNEDY (1/20/61): Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americansborn in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed...

Cronkite and Brinkley had indeed been "tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace."  They didn't arrive on the scene in the kinds of clown cars so common on this current American scene.

Back then, they were numbered among the nation's gatekeepers. Today, a sprawling network of former "wrestlers" and undisguised cable news nut-balls have taken their place as guardians of our flailing nation's increasingly clown-like imitation of public discourse, an imitation of life.

Today, the gatekeeper/guardians are largely gone, replaced by the class of people commonly known as influencers. Two of our current influencers got their start on The Man Show, where they displayed their lack of perfect judgment as they ogled the girls on trampolinesas they thrilled to the exploits of The Juggy Dancers. 

(As they pretended, exactly as Greg Gutfeld currently does, that their unfortunate conduct was really a form of lampoon, of "satire.")

What's an abandoned people to do in the wake of this cultural breakdown? What's an abandoned people to do in the face of 24-hour, nut=ball messaging from overtly partisan corporate "news ogs?" But also from an array of overtly disordered podcaster / influencer types?  

What are we the people to do as our mystical union descends into the current tribal war? Alas! We the people forced to fall back on our own imperfect powers, as people around the globe have always been forced to do.  

This country is full of good, decent peoplebut we're also a nation of people people. We humans have never been a race of mental giants. That helps explain why viewers of Fox & Friends Weekend were weirdly told this, very early, at 6:09 a.m., this past Sunday morning, about what had happened, the night before, at the Correspondents Dinner:

CAMPOS-DUFFY (4/26/26): As everyone now knows, we saw a shooter outside of the venue, outside of the ballroom doors. He was trying to get through the magnetometers, and he was shot and killed as he was trying to rush into the ballroom, where the president, vice president, members of the cabinet wereabout a thousand, over a thousand people, were at that dinner. Very dramatic events indeed.   

Say what? The shooter was shot and killed as he tried to rush into the ballroom?  Why in the world had Campos-Duffy said that? 

Strange! It had become quite clear, on Saturday night, that the attempted assailant had not been shot and killed as he rushed toward the ballroom of the Washington Hilton that night. Indeed, here's what co-host Charlie Hurt had already said, eight minutes earlier, right at the start of that same Fox & Friends Weekend program:  

HURT: The suspect was apprehended before he could get to the ballroom and hurt anyone else, and the takedown was caught on camera. He's now been identified as 31-year-old Cole Allen of Torrance, California, who's believed to have been a guest at the hotel. He's believed to have acted alone and reportedly told law enforcement that he wanted to shoot Trump administration officials.

That's what the other friend had accurately said. Reading from prompter, Campos-Duffy proceeded to say that he was "set to be arraigned tomorrow.

It was clear, by 6:02, that Allen had been taken into custody. That said, Campos-Duffy still seemed to have it in her head that he had been shot and killed.  

Everybody makes mistakesand what happened at the Hilton had been very upsetting to many people. It may have been so for Campos-Duffy, who had been present at the event with her husband, a cabinet member, and with her two co-hosts.

At any rate, Campos-Duffy mistakenly "let the word go forth [on Fox & Friends Weekend] to friend and foe alike." The shooter had been shot and killed, she now strangely said.

Everybody makes mistakesand in this instance, cable news etiquette prevailed. Neither of her two co-hosts corrected her groaning misstatement. At 6:22, Campos-Duffy finally corrected herself, as you can see right here

Everybody makes mistakes and shows imperfect judgment! Today, our cable news stars and our other gatekeepers are frequently highly fallible, to the extent that they're trying to be truthful at all.

We the people are left on our own. The results can be quite spotty:

At 7 o'clock that very morning, C-Span's Washington Journal began to take phone calls from us the people. Those phone calls were cause for substantial concern. The basic fact of the matter is this:  

When we the people are left on our ownwhen reliable gatekeepers have been replacedthe ideas we the people generate can be cause for substantial concern.

We often get it very wrong. Under current arrangementsgiven the nature of the new technologiesour weird ideas quickly spread.

Tomorrow: What the callers said