FRIDAY: We took two books to the medical place!

FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 2026

We've advised you to pity the child: With trepidation, we'll admit that we took two books today to the medical mission. It occurred to us, only today and down in that place, that each of these books tells the story of the upbringing of a child:

Mary L. Trump
Too Much and Never Enough 
Simon & Schuster, 2020

Francine Prose
Anne Frank: The Book, The Life, The Afterlife
HarperCollins, 2009

As a courtesy, we're omitting the subtitle to Mary Trump's book. We plan to return to her general subject matter at the start of the week. 

That said:

Prose's book always consumes us. The fuller story of Anne Frank's famous book—of the way the book was written; of the way the book was saved—does include magical elements. 

Prose's book is also the story of a child who was lucky enough to be loved within her family and within her Amsterdam neighborhood, until the madness fully arrived. 

Prose says she was a "challenging" child. One anecdote goes like this:  

A demanding and often sickly baby, Anne grew into a challenging child—mercurial, moody, humorous, alternately outgoing and shy. A natural performer, she liked to pop her elbow out of its socket to get her friends’ attention. She was bossy, theatrical, and outspoken. She was only four when she and her beloved grandmother Oma Hollander boarded a crowded Aachen streetcar, and Anne demanded, “Won’t someone offer a seat to this old lady?”

In Amsterdam, she grew close to Hanneli Goslar, the “Lies” about whom Anne would later have the waking nightmare she describes in the diary. (“I saw her in front of me, clothed in rags, her face thin and worn.”) A German refugee who had arrived in Holland around the same time as Anne, Hanneli met Anne in a grocery store; their mothers were glad to find someone with whom they could speak German. The Franks called on Hanneli Goslar’s parents every Friday evening, and the two families celebrated Passover together. Eventually, Hanneli’s mother, Ruth, would say about Anne, “God knows everything, but Anne knows everything better.”  

A beloved grandmother too! 

Meanwhile, Anne knew everything better? For that, we'll give thanks to the gods! In our view, that was her job, as a young developing human person. She was encouraged by her parents—by her neighbors and by her various neighborhood friends.  

Prose holds that Anne Frank, who died at age 15, has never received her due as a precocious developing writer—as someone who was determined to become a writer. She rewrote what had started out as her personal diary, turning it into "a memoir in the form of diary entries," in the final year of her life. 

She hoped that the (famous) book thus produced would be read by people around the world. We'll reproduce one other anecdote: 

Interviewed by Ernst Schnabel, a novelist and dramatist who served in the German navy during World War II and who wrote the 1958 book Anne Frank: A Portrait in Courage, the mother of Anne’s friend Jopie van der Waal...also remembered making dresses for Anne. But what she mostly recalled is Anne’s forceful personality, her desire to be a writer, and her precocious sense of self. The phrase, “She knew who she was,” recurs, like a refrain, throughout the conversation, during which Mme. Van der Waal described the ceremony and the theater with which Anne arrived to spend the weekend:

“When Anne came to stay with us, she always brought a suitcase. A suitcase, mind you, when it wasn’t a stone’s throw between us. The suitcase was empty of course, but Anne insisted on it, because only with the suitcase did she feel as if she were really traveling.”

She wanted to feel she was really traveling! Six million others (and many more) were lost to the world in the astonishing madness which followed. 

We'll return to Mary Trump's general subject matter next week—to her uncle's possible medical situation. In our view, no other topic is more important at this particular time. That strikes us as fairly obvious.

In our view, obvious danger is present there. Also, we've advised you to pity the child.

BREAKING: We recommend Hall's opinion piece!

FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 2026

Also, the fourth question POTUS was asked: We're back to the medical mission today! There's a whole lot of sitting around involved in such an excursion.

We may post later this afternoon. In the meantime, we recommend Colby Hall's opinion piece over at Mediaite. More precisely, we recommend the important question he raises:

OPINION
We’ve Stopped Noticing That Trump’s Cabinet Meetings Are Completely Insane

Here is a partial list of subjects covered by the President of the United States at Thursday’s cabinet meeting:

The obliteration of Iran’s navy. The TSA shutdown. A woman killed in Chicago. The Federal Reserve building renovation. The cost of Sharpie pens. Venezuelan oil revenue. King Charles’s cancer. Gavin Newsom’s self-reported learning disability. Cognitive tests. SCOTUS. The Kennedy Center. California high-speed rail. NATO’s failure to send ships. A thousand-dollar pen that didn’t write. The prime minister of the United Kingdom. Caravans. Sanctuary cities.  The 25th Amendment. A joint venture with Venezuela. Drug smugglers who don’t watch television.

That was one meeting. Ninety-eight minutes. A wartime cabinet briefing...

That's the way the column starts. As Hall continues, he raises a very good question about ongoing press corps behavior—a question we think we've been answering over the past many months.

(And yes, we've noticed the rather strong language found at the end of that headline.)

Hall is asking a very important question; he's raising important concerns. Next week, we plan to return to what we regard as the central question now facing this failing nation:

We refer to the basic questions which seem to be obvious concerning the sitting president's health.

As we rush out the door today, we also offer you this:

After yesterday's "cabinet meeting," the president proceeded to spend the bulk of the 5 o'clock hour on the phone—on the phone with The Five!

He came on the line at 5:14. Presumably, the children could have asked any question they pleased.

That said, attention spans are remarkably short on this dimwitted "cable news" program. Believe it or not, after a bit of towel-snapping and some joking around, this was the fourth question asked:

WATTERS (3/26/26): But let me ask you about Iran. You've kind of suggested that we'd knocked out Ayatollah Junior. Have we—and did the CIA tell you that Ayatollah Junior is gay?

Is the new Ayatollah gay? He wanted to know about Iran, so that was the fourth question asked. 

(For the record, no one ever asked the president to explain the overall purpose of the ongoing war. We aren't assuming that he couldn't have explained the purpose. We're just saying that nobody asked.)

All in all, it was an instructive 46 minutes. A nation which tolerates this imitation of life without a word of comment is a nation which finds itself in a very large volume of hurt.

There's more to be said about yesterday's show. But that was one star's first ask.

Go ahead—peruse Hall's piece! We disagree with him on one point, but he's raising important concerns.

THURSDAY: A minor but prickly conceptual question!

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2026

Can anyone here play this game? This very morning, in this report, we briefly voiced an awkward question, if only inferentially. 

Our question concerned Greg Gutfeld and Emily Compagno, a pair of Fox News Channel co-hosts. The question we floated was this: 

Are Compagno and Gutfeld qualified to appear as analysts (or as whatever you might want to call it) on Fox News Channel "cable news" TV programs? Are Compagno and Gutfeld qualified for the roles in which they're currently cast?

No one else will ever ask. So we thought we'd go ahead.

Granted, Fox is an actual "cable news" channel in much the way Mayberry's Barney Fife was head of the FBI. That said, it may seem to offend against a basic American principle to ask if Persons A , B and C are "qualified" to discuss news topics on American TV programs. 

"All men [sic] are created equal," it's often said in these parts. That may trigger a populist sentiment which rebels against the idea that some people qualify to serve on TV news programs while other people don't. 

Something there is that doesn’t love a wall—and perhaps a question like that!

At any rate, how about it? Are some people simply unqualified to serve as major figures in nationwide TV news? The Fox News Channel almost seems to be running an experiment testing that very question, given the array of Improbables, Unlikelies and Unrecognizables you encounter on their most-watched programs.

A former "wrestler," a former NFL cheerleader; a former MTV VJ? A chef named Gruel, a bunch of struggling comedians, Bill O'Reilly's "man in the street?" 

A star from the early years of MTV's Real People? (In fairness, she met her husband during that reign—and he's in the cabinet now!)

Once again, let's be fair! Any such person could be up to the task of conducting intelligent news discussions—but have you ever actually watched the programs we have in mind? Would you compare those shows to performances by an offshoot of the Village People, or might it be more like the Bad News Bears? 

Obviously, it's no sin to be under-qualified for an assignment of this type. But is it possible that some or all of the "television personalities" on this corporate messaging channel actually fit in that box?

Tyrus and Jesse and Gruel oh my! Where in the world do they get these people? 

But also this, it must be said:

Over here in Blue America, why don't our pretenders complain?

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 nonbinary—neither 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 Potteiger—but 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 technologies—it'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 disturbed—and 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 person—a 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 lad—nearly 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 ugliest—and dumbest—possible 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 Talarico—and 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't—if 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

WEDNESDAY: "Baghdad Bob," the honcho declared!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2026

His statement was disappeared: What does an act of "sifting" look like? To answer your question, let's visit the first segment of yesterday's The Five. 

Co-host Dana Perino introduced the day's first topic—and frankly, the co-host was suitably stunned. The program started like this: 

PERINO: (3/24/26): Hello, everyone. I'm Dana Perino, here with Kennedy, Jessica Tarlov, Jesse Watters and Greg Gutfeld. It's 5 o'clock in New York City, and this is The Five!

And a stunning divide here at home over who to believe—Trump or Iran. The president says he's having productive negotiations with the terror regime on a deal to end the war, claiming Iran agreed to no nukes and even revealing that the Iranians sent a gift related to oil and gas. 

Who to believe—Trump or Iran? There was a stunning divide! 

At this point, producers played tape of the president's public statements about the negotiations and about that "very big present," which he further described as "a very big prize." 

That said, who should you believe? Perino's intro continued: 

PERINO (continuing directly): Iranian officials are denying that negotiations are even happening, and some Democrats, including Barack Obama's former CIA director, appear to be more inclined to believe Iran over the president.  

To her credit, she didn't say Barack Hussein Obama!

"I tend to believe Iran more than I do Donald Trump," former director John Brennan was now shown saying, in a tightly edited video clip in which he seemed to be chuckling. There followed other tightly edited video clips in which Senators Van Hollen, Schiff and Schumer were not shown saying that they trust the Iranians more. 

What had these solons actually said? As is often the case when Fox presents tightly edited video clips, there was no obvious way to know. But what had been shown was "close enough for Fox News Channel work"—was close enough to justify the shocking summary messaged on this chyron:

DEMS BELIEVE IRAN'S TERROR REGIME OVER TRUMP

With that, the program's viewers had been messaged. There was only one problem:

As we noted yesterday, one major figure from Fox's own Murdoch empire had made a tougher statement than anything Perino had shown on the screen. That major player was Gerard Baker, former editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal. He had punched hard, below the belt, in an X post which was featured in this report by Mediaite:

‘We Have Become Baghdad Bob’: Wall Street Journal Editor Delivers Stunning Condemnation of Trump 

Fox News contributor and former Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker made a stunning comparison between President Donald Trump and an infamous propagandist for the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein on Monday.

Baker, a familiar face on both Fox News and Fox Business as well as the editor-at-large of the Journal, made the comparison after Trump and the Iranian government made contrasting statements about negotiations that may or may not be taking place between the two parties. 

[...] 

Baker expressed more faith in the Iranians’ story than Trump’s.

“The unsettling reality is that with this president, Americans in wartime are in the unprecedented position of having to suspect that the enemy’s version of events is more likely to be true than our own,” he wrote shortly after the Iranians issued their denial. “We have become Baghdad Bob.”

Baker is still an editor-at-large over at the Journal. To see his latest weekly column for the Journal, you can just click here.

Also, he's a Fox News contributor! Did we forget to mention that?

That said, Oof! What Baker posted was much more cutting than anything Brennan or the three Democratic senators were shown to have said. In his post, he said that Trump has managed to turn the United States into the new Baghdad Bob! 

At the nation's top-rated "cable news" show, everyone knew how to handle this awkward state of affairs. Baker's assault was disappeared, as Perino smiled reassuringly. 

To see Baker's post, you can just click this. But, dear friends, please play by the rules:

In service to tribalized spotless minds, Please don't tell your Red American associates, neighbors and friends!

IMPRECATIONS: DefSec's warrior pastor speaks!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2026

It has now come to this:  We'd planned to speak today about the recent murder of Stephanie Minter, age 41, in Fairfax County, Virginia. Also, about the recent murder of Sheridan Gorman, age 18, on the Chicago lakefront. 

Last night, on the Fox News Channel, Trace Gallagher alleged that CNN and MSNOW have refused to report or discuss these recent killings. We had planned to cite the tribal siftings—the tribal evasions—involved in this state of affairs. 

We Blues! As the "democratization of media" has helped split this nation into warring tribes, we Blues have disappeared important news topics too! We had planned to go there today—but thanks to Michael Luciano's report at Mediaite, we can tell you instead that it has now come to this: 

Hegseth’s Pastor Agrees With Interviewer Who Says ‘I Pray That God Kills’ Democratic Candidate

The pastor and spiritual adviser to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth agreed with a podcaster’s wish that God kill state Rep. James Talarico (D-TX).

Brooks Potteiger is a pastor at Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, a church in the Nashville area that Hegseth attends. In August, Hegseth held a Christian religious service at the Pentagon, where Potteiger was invited to say a prayer.

Last Tuesday, Potteiger appeared on the Reformation Red Pill podcast, where host Joshua Haymes, who is also a member of Pilgrim Hill, made some astonishing remarks about Talarico. This month, Talarico won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate after having spoken openly about his Christian faith while also opposing Christian nationalism, to which Hegseth subscribes.

Just to be clear, we're speaking here about Secretary Hegseth's pastor, not about Secretary Hegseth himself. According to Luciano, that pastor agreed, on a recent podcast, with some "astonishing" remarks. 

With respect to those remarks, How astonishing were they? We'll offer a fuller transcript below, but here's what Luciano reported next: 

[continuing directly from above]
“I pray that God kills him,” Haymes said. “Ultimately, that means killing his heart and raising him up to new life in Christ.”

“Right,” Potteiger agreed. “We want him crucified with Christ.” 

It gets worse, as you can see below. But that's what Luciano reported. 

Luciano's report continues from there. We'll suggest that you read his report and look at the videotape it includes.

In our view, it's an important report—a report which helps capture what Plato once called "the [difficulty] of the time." 

At this site, we've been puzzled by Hegseth's demeanor ever since 2023. During that year, we started watching him on Fox & Friends Weekend. 

Again, it isn't Secretary Hegseth who made the remarks in question. But can a large, highly "diverse" modern nation expect to survive the "democratization" to which we've referred? 

In our view, the answer isn't clear. That said, here's a fuller chunk of the conversation which now sits out there on the web for anyone to be influenced by. 

The Christian pastors are talking about James Talarico, age 36, the Texas Senate nominee of whom they disapprove:

HAYMES (3/17/26): This is the kind of guy you pray imprecatory psalms against, and I mean that actually. 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.

POTTEIGER: I want him to be—Saul of Tarsus? Talarico of Tarsus! That's what I want. Who would say, "I was holding the garments while they stoned Stephen and now I'm the —" Yeah! That's what we want.

HAYMES: Yes. We want death and new life, right? And if it would not be within God’s will to do so, stop him by any means necessary, O God! That’s why we pray imprecatory psalms, even in our Lord’s Day service. We're Whole Bible Christians, after all. 

Haymes and his wife had been talking about making the others as dung! At any rate, what's a "Whole Bible Christian?" 

With no disrespect intended, you'll have to Google that up. 

What did those Whole Bible believers literally mean by the various things they said? Each person can puzzle that out. But whatever these two Christians actually meant, we regard what they said as dangerous.

At any rate, that's a slightly larger chunk of what the two Christians said. It's now floating around on the web for everyone in the country to hear.

Regarding what we've transcribed, we'll note that it's Haymes who does most of the talking. But it's Potteiger, the DefSec's pastor, who provides some of the more colorful talk. 

Does Potteiger want the candidate killed, or does he want the candidate converted? We can't tell you how to read that. We can tell you this: 

On that same day—on Tuesday, March 17—Greg Gutfeld and Emily Compagno engaged in dangerous secular talk concerning Talarico. They did so on our nation's most-watched "cable news" program, The Five. 

When they emitted some truly remarkable statements, no major figure in Blue America deigned to say a word. Over here in Blue America, our major news orgs have decided that the Fox News Channel doesn't even exist.

Rather plainly, The Five is a "news show" in name only. In reality, it's a propaganda / entertainment entity—a dim-witted corporate messaging vehicle whose co-hosts may or may not be qualified to participate in an actual TV "news" program.

We Blues! The people we've been trained to trust won't report or discuss this ongoing situation. We'll guess that it's safer and easier to look away—to refuse to discuss the real world.

Tomorrow morning, bright and early, we'll show you what our cowardly kittens are choosing to enable. We'll transcribe the remarkable comments emitted by Gutfeld and Compagno.

We'll transcribe what the messengers said. All in all, the game works like this:

Silo Red cranks it out. Silo Blue runs off and hides!

Tomorrow: What the two messengers said