TUESDAY: Is Adam Smith allowed to say that?

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2026

What the congressman said: Adam Smith appeared as a guest on Fox News Sunday last weekend. 

We refer to Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), a Democrat from the state of Washington. In our view, he tends to be smart and sane. 

He serves as Ranking Member of (as top Democrat on) the House Armed Services Committee. It was in that capacity that he appeared on Fox News Sunday with its anchor, Shannon Bream, who has sometimes also been caught being both smart and sane. 

Bream isn't the standard Fox News Channel messenger person. On Sunday, she and Smith had a lengthy discussion about the current partial government shutdown.

In the main, we aren't concerned today with the shape of that longer discussion. Along the way, Smith surprised us with something he actually said. We join that discussion in progress:

BREAM (3/29/26): If you [Democrats] all want to change ICE policy, why not fund everyone as these bills were already agreed to? There was a bipartisan agreement on these bills. They hit this block in the Senate after they'd already been part of a bipartisan negotiation.

SMITH: Yes! They hit the block in the Senate after two American citizens were killed in Minneapolis, without any accountability!

BREAM: Which is a tragedy, but there are Americans too—Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray—I mean, those are Americans who have been killed too.

SMITH: We have a legitimate debate to be had over how to do immigration enforcement. And by the way, I agree with Senator Cotton [an earlier guest]. The Biden administration did not do immigration enforcement the way it should have. We should have the border more secure than it was. But there's plenty of room between that policy, between the "radical left" policy you keep talking about—you know, open borders and all of that—and having masked, unidentifiable ICE agents show up, no probable cause, no due process, killing two people, warrantless searches of peoples' homes, detaining people without any due process. Can't we get somewhere in between in those two extremes? 

And so on from there. 

You're looking at part of a longer discussion. We're mainly concerned with these highlighted statements by Smith: 

The Biden administration did not do immigration enforcement the way it should have. We should have the border more secure than it was. 

We think we may have heard some major Democrat making some such statements before. But we're not totally sure that we have.

The handling of the southern border under President Biden remains the political gift which keeps on giving to purveyors of agitprop inside Silo Red. It's always there for Red American messengers to mention and fall back on. 

To the best of our knowledge, the handling of the southern border under President Biden remains unexplained to this day. Smith has at least acknowledged a fact what will seem to be obvious to tens of millions of voters: 

Absent some future explanation, the first three-plus years of border policy under President Biden are very hard to affirm. It seems to us that Smith had the right idea in admitting that this unexplained policy matter went wrong. 

A final point: 

Who were Rachel Morin and Jocelyn Nungaray?  Every Fox News Channel viewer will know. Some Blue Americans may not.

In our view, we Blues have promulgated some slippery evasions regarding the way they (and others) were sexually assaulted and murdered in recent years. Jocelyn Nungaray was only 12 years old at the time of her vicious killing by a pair of assailants. 

In our view, attention should have been paid by Blues as well as by Reds.

We Blues may be inclined to cling to our tribal dodges. It's a very human thing to do, but as we try to shape the future, we think it's a bad idea.

HEALTH: Tur was also concerned by the Sharpies!

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2026

No specialists need apply: As we noted yesterday, the president held a televised "cabinet meeting" last Thursday. 

That evening, CNN's Erin Burnett was concerned. Her program, Erin Burnett OutFront, starts at 7 p.m. That evening, she started like this:  

BURNETT (3/26/26) Out front next, breaking news: 

Iran with a new threat against U.S. troops as Trump reportedly weighs new military options to seize Iranian land.

Also breaking: Are TSA lines about to finally get shorter? An announcement just in that could make a major difference at airports across the country tonight.

And why did President Trump spend five minutes talking about Sharpies today? Is this what Americans want? Let's go OUTFRONT. 

With respect to the cabinet meeting, he had her (concerned) with the Sharpies! Granted, it wasn't the first piece of breaking news that night. But the Sharpies were out front as Burnett opened her show. 

As we noted yesterday, Burnett called upon S. E. Cupp to help her discuss the five minutes the president spent on the Sharpies. Cupp was concerned about that matter too. As we noted yesterday, here's part of what she said: 

CUPP: Listen, the truth is, most voters are not watching these insane cabinet meetings. We have the pleasure of having to do that, and they are insane. 

And if you watch them, that's one, one of several moments that are just kind of nutso. If you watch them, you have to seriously question Trump's stability. 

"It's insane. It's insane," she later said. "It could get people killed." 

In fairness, it wasn't clear, at that later point, what Cupp was actually talking about. 

Was she talking about the president's conduct? Or was she talking about "the groveling, the flattery" of the cabinet members—"the North Korea coded kind of attitude you have to have in this White House?" 

At that point, it wasn't clear what was insane. As we noted yesterday, the segment ended with this:

CUPP: He hasn't even told the American public why were in Iran, when we're going to get out, what to expect. He hasn't conditioned us to know what's about to happen. And he's rambling for four minutes about Sharpies. It's embarrassing. 

BURNETT: Four minutes and 56 seconds, to be exact. 

Linguistically, "embarrassing" seems less troubling than "insane." But along the way, Cupp had made this statement about the "nutso moments" from that day's televised event:

You have to seriously question Trump's stability. 

You have to (seriously) question the president's stability, Cupp had plainly said. But does anyone have a clear idea what she meant by that? 

During the program, Burnett played a brief chunk of videotape from the president's five-minute ramble. Later, People magazine presented a lengthy report about the ramble, including extensive excerpts of what the president had actually said.  

(Headline: Trump Rambles About Sharpie Pens for 5 Straight Minutes During High-Level Cabinet Meeting amid Iran War. To read that report, just click here. Lengthy quotations from Trump included!)

To appearances, Burnett was concerned about what she had seen when the president went on that extensive side trip. But please note what she and her producers did: 

They didn't book a medical specialist to discuss what the president's conduct might mean. Instead, they booked a political commentator—and when that commentator voiced concern about the president's "stability," Burnett made no attempt to ask her what she might mean. 

So it goes as our major journalists tiptoe on eggshells, pretending to discuss such points. Plainly, Burnett and Cupp thought there was something to be concerned about in the president's five-minute discussion of Sharpies—but then again, so did MS NOW's Katy Tur.

Yesterday afternoon, Tur devoted a segment to the same topic on her two-hour afternoon program, Katy Tur Reports. In our view, Tur is thoroughly sharp. 

At Mediate, Alex Griffing published a detailed report about what Tur now said. Headline included, his report, with videotape included, started off like this: 

‘Is Donald Trump Well?’ MS NOW’s Katy Tur Does Deep Dive on President’s Mental Acuity 

MS NOW anchor Katy Tur asked her viewers on Monday if President Donald Trump is still mentally fit, taking a deep dive into polls showing a growing number of Americans are starting to ask the question.

“Is Donald Trump well? Is his head in the presidency? Does he have the mental acuity to lead this country?” Tur began to kick off the segment, adding:

"More people are starting to doubt that—beyond, of course, Democrats who have always doubted it. "

Soon, Tur was focusing on the Sharpies monologue. Specifically, she was asking about the president's "mental acuity," just as that headline said. 

Tur was concerned by that five-minute ramble too! In our view, that concern is perfectly reasonable—is quite important, in fact.

That said, Tur didn't bring anyone on her show to evaluate what the president said. After playing extensive tape of his comments about the Sharpies—after listing various claims by the president which had apparently turned out to be false—Tur simply expressed her own concern in the manner shown: 

TUR (3/30/26): While a lot of this has always just been part of who Donald Trump is—a man who works the room, seeks attention, seeks applause—he’s now about to be 80 years old, and he’s launched a war that he does not seem to have a plan for. 

Based upon the highlighted statement, it seemed that Tur was voicing concern about a familiar type of cognitive decline. We refer to the type of decline which will often occur—but which often doesn't occur—when people reached an advanced age.   

Might something be wrong with the sitting president? Is it possible that he is experiencing a cognitive decline of a fairly familiar type? Is there reason to question his stability, whatever that might? 

Also, is it possible that he's "insane," whatever that might mean? Was that merely colloquial speech on Cupp's part, or did Cupp mean something specific by that choice of wods? 

Quite a few journalists and news orgs have called attention to the apparent oddness of the president's ramble about Sharpies last week. As far as we know, none of them have interviewed medical specialists about their alleged points of concern. 

None have spoken to medical specialists about their concern! We'll leave you today with this question: 

How sincere a concern is that? 

On this sprawling campus, we're conducting a search for the president's health. That said, we're also conducting a maddening search for intelligent American journalism. 

Should journos be speaking to medical specialists? Or are interviews with other cable figures "close enough for journalistic work?"

Tomorrow: Cognitive decline v. "mental illness"

Still coming: The intriguing essay which carried this headline:

OPINION

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

MONDAY: We didn't want to leave Friday behind!

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2026

Truth beauty, beauty truth: "Truth is beauty, beauty truth?" Or was it the other way around? 

We couldn't quite remember! We've never ingested the poem in question, but that bromide has been banging around inside our heads over the past few days. 

Today, we finally googled it up. There Keats had gone again, at the end of a famous ode, addressing some ancient pottery:

Ode on a Grecian Urn 

[...]  

When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
 "Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all
 Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

That's the way the poem ends. Aside from its famous bromide, we wouldn't necessarily recommend it. 

Truth is beauty, beauty truth? The misordered saying had been banging around in our heads because of what we got to write about on Friday afternoon, after spending some time down at the medical mission. 

We had taken two books along to combat the hours of sitting around. As we noted in Friday afternoon's report, the two books in our satchel were these: 

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

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

Until that very day, it hadn't occurred to us that there's a type of connection between those two books. The connection is lodged in the first thing Prose includes in her endlessly fascinating book. 

Prose starts with something John Berryman wrote about Anne Frank's extremely famous book way back in 1967:

I would call the subject of Anne Frank’s Diary even more mysterious and fundamental than St. Augustine’s, and describe it as the conversion of a child into a person…. 

In fact, each of the books we scanned that day involve "the conversion of a child into a person"—or perhaps, the way that conversion may fail to occur in the case of the unfortunate child who is raised in a profoundly unhelpful way. 

Mary Trump's book describes the disordered upbringing of her uncle, starting at age 2 and a half. There is also a passing mention of the fact that certain kinds of (serious) "personality disorders" can be inherited—can be passed along right there in the genes.

Mary Trump describes a tragically disordered upbringing. As Prose describes Anne Frank's upbringing, she describes something quite different. 

On Friday, we posted a pair of anecdotes from Prose's book. We didn't want to post on Saturday morning—didn't want to leave those captured moments behind.

Before the madness arrived, the one child was receiving what you'd hope every child would receive. In Mary Frank's detailed account, the other child was receiving a vastly different type of experience.

You can almost imagine that the results are there for all to see. Pity the child, we've said

We didn't want to post again on Saturday morning. We wanted to stay where we were.

We wanted to stay with that extremely famous, sacred child—with the developing, cherished young person before the madness arrived. Truth is beauty, beauty truth, Prose's book always seems to say.

HEALTH: We're launching a search for the president's health!

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2026

And for what that familiar term means: Last Thursday afternoon, the sitting president convened one of his televised "cabinet meetings."  

We employ scare quotes there because these televised events are unlike the classic cabinet meetings of the American past. That evening, on CNN's Erin Burnett Outfront, Burnett asked S. E. Cupp to comment on this latest event.

Meanwhile, who is S. E. Supp? Burnett introduced her on this occasion as "former Republican strategist, now podcast and television host S. E. Cupp." 

The leading authority on Cupp's career as a political commentator offers this somewhat dated overview:  

S. E. Cupp 

Sarah Elizabeth Cupp (born February 23, 1979) is an American television host, political commentator, and writer. In August 2017, she began hosting S. E. Cupp: Unfiltered, a political panel show, co-hosted by Andrew Levy, on HLN and later CNN.

She is a former panelist on the CNN political debate show Crossfire, author of Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity and co-author of Why You're Wrong About the Right. She was a co-host of the MSNBC talk show The Cycle...

[...]  

Throughout her career, Cupp has described herself as a "mainstream conservative" and a supporter of "limited government, self-reliance, self-empowerment, lower taxes." ... 

Cupp was strongly critical of Donald Trump's [first term] presidency, saying "I don't know these Republicans [that support Trump]. This isn't what drew me to this party." She voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 United States presidential election. 

So it had gone with Cupp as of 2020. Now she was discussing the president's latest "cabinet meeting." In part, she offered this:

CUPP (3/26/26): Listen, the truth is, most voters are not watching these insane cabinet meetings. We have the pleasure of having to do that, and they are insane. 

And if you watch them, that's one, one of several moments that are just kind of nutso. If you watch them, you have to seriously question Trump's stability.

She described the televised events as "kind of nutso," insane. Most strikingly, she said the televised events raise serious questions about the sitting president's "stability."

That was one observer's instant assessment of the day's event. Later, Cupp added this commentary on the cabinet members, but also concerning the president himself:

CUPP: This is the cost of being in Trump's orbit. Pam Bondi unfurled a banner at DOJ with Trump's face on it to suck up to him. Rick Grenell put Trump's name on the Kennedy Center to suck up to him. He's now gone.

I mean, it's really humiliating. The groveling, the flattery, the North Korea coded kind of attitude you have to have in this White House and news breaking today, he's going to put his name on our money. I mean, this is just humiliating for a great nation like ours.

I just think we are looking increasingly like a North Korea, you know, like a hermit nation where you just have to tell the president what he wants to hear. I hear they're showing him videos of things blowing up in Iran. Like that's his security briefing. 

It's insane. It's insane. It could get people killed. But just at the basic level, this is not America as we know.

[...]

He hasn't even told the American public why were in Iran, when we're going to get out, what to expect. He hasn't conditioned us to know what's about to happen. And he's rambling for four minutes about Sharpies. It's embarrassing. 

BURNETT: Four minutes and 56 seconds, to be exact.

That was one (1) observer's assessment. For whatever it may be worth, the word "insane" kept sliding in as Cupp assessed that day's "North Korea coded" event. 

That said, also this:

That was Cupp's first mention of the Sharpies. Right at the start of the show, Burnett had beaten her to it.

Burnett had explicitly teased the president's discussion of the Sharpies in the CNN program's first minute. Later, she mentioned the Sharpies again as she teased the upcoming segment with Cupp:

("Why did President Trump spend nearly five minutes today talking about Sharpies while America is at war?")

Say what? Had the president really spent five minutes discussing Sharpies at the "cabinet meeting?" As shown above, Burnett timed the president's rambling discussion at "four minutes and 56 seconds, to be exact." 

Plainly, Burnett thought this discussion had been strange. Cupp seemed to think it was part of what made her question the president's "stability."

So it went inside much of Silo Blue in the wake of the "cabinet meeting." Cupp made liberal use od the word "insane." Earlier, a headline in Mediaite had used that same word, except a bit more so. 

The opinion piece at Mediate had been written by Colby Hall, one of the site's founding editors. The headline atop Hall's opinion piece said this:  

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

In the headline, the president's cabinet meetings were said to be completely insane. In the body of his piece, Hall quickly mentioned the Sharpies, along with a few other somewhat peculiar "subjects covered by the President of the United States at Thursday’s cabinet meeting."

The headline called the meeting insane—completely insane at that. Somewhat oddly, the word "insane" doesn't appear in the body of Hall's essay. 

Still, an obvious question might have seemed to arise in Hall's piece. It seems like a very important question:

Was Hall suggesting that something may be wrong, in a serious, significant or dangerous way, with the president's "mental health?"

Was Hall suggesting something like that? We'll examine his essay tomorrow. For today, we'll close with this:

On a conceptual basis, physical illness is easy. On a conceptual basis, so-called "mental illness" is hard. 

Our struggling society, such as it is, operates with a very limited set of understandings about the nature of "mental illness." Also, our news orgs have long agreed that questions of mental health must never arise in discussions of major political figures.

That was always a very good rule—until the time came when it wasn't.

Is it possible that our sitting president is struggling with (serious) mental health issues? How well do we understand what that claim might even mean?

Today, we start down a long and winding road in pursuit of those plainly important questions. Is something wrong with the president's "stability"—with the president's health? As a nation, shouldn't we possibly be trying to puzzle that out?

As a society, we're looking at this question through a glass extremely darkly. Like all people, the president deserves to be in good health—but what is the actual situation on this very day?

Tomorrow: Hall seemed to voice a major complaint—a complaint about the press

SATURDAY: She had a question for President Trump!

SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 2026

We have a question for you: You'll have to forgive us for our minor activity today. 

We're looking ahead, starting Monday, to (as Lincoln had it) "a task greater than that which rested upon Washington." Also, how can a person hope to keep pace with the moral and intellectual squalor which now stirs the drink of this failing nation's imitation of a public discourse?

We speak as someone who watched the angry, fantastically bungled first segment of last night's Gutfeld! show. But also, as someone who watched the children pretend to question President Trump on Thursday's edition of The Five, in an imitation of an interview which lasted 46 minutes.

As we noted yesterday morning, the children's attention spans were notably short that day. As we noted, it fell to Jesse Watters to ask the session's fourth question. 

By now, attention spans were almost spent. This was the best he could do:

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 "Ayatollah Junior" gay? It seemed to be the only question the famous fellow could conjure. 

Question 6 came from Greg Gutfeld. Inevitably, it concerned himself: 

GUTFELD: Mr. President, let's shift onto some other topics. I'm debating whether to be serious or not serious. 

I'm gonna be not serious! 

[...] 

You know, you're doing the White House Correspondents Dinner for the first time, and you're gonna get a 10. Why wasn't I asked to do the roast? 

It was the best he could manage. (We think we've correctly transcribed the part about the president getting a 10.)

(We've edited out an interruption, in which the president asked if "Sleepy Joe" could have handled an interview session like this one. The children chuckled and agreed that he never could have done it!)

Lincoln headed off from Springfield, hoping to save the nation. As in The Sixth Sense, so too today:

Has the death of the nation already occurred, but we just don't know it yet? 

Special bonus question: Question 9 came from Dana Perino. By now, the charade was splayed out for all to see. This is what she asked: 

PERINO: Hi, it's Dana again, and I have a kind of pop culture question for you. 

So I'm new to New York, relatively speaking—so, fifteen years—and there's all these young people across America are watching Love Story, which is the story of JFK Jr. and Carolyn Bessette. And I'm curious: 

Did you know JFK Jr.? And do you have any nostalgia for the 90s? 

Other questions were even more pointless. Are these the death throes we've chosen?

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

TUESDAY: Did anyone have the slightest idea...

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2026

...what Bessent was talking about? We've often cited "complexification" as one of the principal scourges of our failed or failing political culture. 

Thanks to "segregation by viewpoint," citizens tend to hear only one set of arguments, opinions and facts. They hear the claims which are preferred by their own tribal group, and they hear little else. 

But then, there's also the scourge of "complexification!" Consider what happened when Scott Bessent seemed to speak with Kristen Welker on Sunday's Meet the Press. 

Their imitation of conversation was quickly complexificated. Did anyone out in TV Land understand what the two were allegedly talking about? Also, who created more of the incoherence—Welker or Bessent?

We'll transcribe and you can decide. The policy discussion to which we refer started fairly early on, with Welker asking this: 

WELKER (3/22/26): All right. Let me talk about your announcement this past week. 

On Friday, the Treasury Department lifted sanctions on Iranian oil stored on tankers, a move that would effectively allow Iran to get more than $14 billion of oil revenue. Why is the U.S. helping to fund a country that it’s currently at war with, Mr. Secretary? 

Fellow citizens, tell the truth! At this point, were you already struggling to hold on? 

According to Welker, Treasury had lifted sanctions on Iranian oil—but apparently, only on Iranian oil which was "stored on tankers." 

We'll bite! Why would Iran be storing oil on tankers? We'll guess that few viewers knew. 

At any rate, Welker said this lifting of sanctions would allow Iran to score $14 billion. So why would the United States want to do such a thing? Bessent started like this: 

BESSENT (continuing directly): Again, Kristen, why don’t we have good facts here? That Iranian oil was always going to be sold to the Chinese. It was going to be sold at a discount. So which, which is better, Kristen? The uh, which is better? If oil prices spike to $150 and they were getting 70% of that? Or oil prices below $100? It’s better to have them where they are now. And to be clear, we had always planned for this contingency. 

Bessent wasn't finished at this point. By way of contrast, we'll guess that most viewers already were. 

For ourselves, we'll be honest. Already, we don't have the slightest idea how Bessent's reply connected to Welker's question. Nor do we have any clear understanding of what Bessent's statements actually meant. 

He said the oil in question—the oil which has been "stored on tankers"—was always going to be sold to China, presumably under terms of the pre-existing sanctions (whatever they were) or then again maybe not. Assuming that statement is accurate, he now seemed to say—several statistics were now flashed around—that Iran would gain less cash from the sale of the oil if the sanctions are lifted. 

Possibly, that would happen because the release of the oil in question was going to drive "oil prices" down. But we're basically guessing here. 

Is that what Bessent was saying? To be honest, we still have no clear idea, even two days later. That said, this initial statement by Bessent continued, with the stiff-necked secretary saying this:

BESSENT (continuing directly): About 140 million barrels are out on the water. In essence, we are Jiu-Jitsuing the Iranians. We are using their own oil against them. We have a much better line of sight, to be clear, at Treasury, when this oil goes to— If it goes to Indonesia, if it goes to Japan, if it goes to Korea, we have a much better line of sight and are able to block accounts that the oil goes into. 

When it goes into China it completely gets recycled. So to be clear, that 14 billion number is grossly overstated. 

In a word, NFI! Concerning the meaning of this continuation, we have No F**king Idea! 

Does that passage mean that the oil in question will now be sold to places other than China? That sounds like it might be what it means, as we carefully read the transcript today. But as we watched this answer fly by on Sunday, we had no freaking idea. 

As you can see, Bessent had thrown a puzzlement in at the end: 

"So to be clear," the gentleman said, possibly just to be ironic, "that 14 billion number is grossly overstated." 

We had (and have) no idea how that connected to anything Bessent had previously said. Welker may have been puzzled too. Possibly grasping at straws, she decided to say and ask this:

WELKER (continuing directly): Let me unpack what you’re just saying. First of all, how much is it? And second of all, I don’t hear you disputing that Iran will get some of the money. 

"How much is it?" Welker now said, seeming to refer to Bessent's claim that her initial $14 billion figure was just plain wrong, all wrong. She also seemed to ask why Iran should be getting any money at all from the sale of the oil. In the short run, the next few volleys went like this: 

BESSENT (continuing directly): Iran always—already gets a huge amount of the money because Iran is the largest sponsor of state terrorism and China has been funding them.

WELKER: So it was always part of the plan to un-sanction Iranian oil?

BESSENT: Again, we unsanctioned the— At Treasury, we plan for all contingencies. We have break-the-glass plans. And to be able— 

This water—this oil is floating out in Asia, and it is mostly our Asian allies—the U.S. gets virtually no oil from the Gulf. We are energy sufficient. So when we un-sanction this, rather than the oil going to China, it can go to Japan. It can go to Korea. It can go to Indonesia. It can go to Malaysia.

WELKER: And it can go to Iran too. I mean, isn’t the point that the sanctions were in place to prevent Iran from getting any of the money? They will have access to some of the money now.

BESSENT: No, again— Kristen, you’re missing the point. So, please listen to me. 

By now, the oil—or perhaps the water—was "floating out in Asia." Welker seemed to say that Iran might be able to sell some of its oil to itself!

"Kristen, you’re missing the point," Bessent said. "So, please listen to me." 

What he said about Welker might have been true (or not). But is there any reason to think that his proposed solution would have helped? 

As you can see in the Meet the Press transcript, this attempt at a policy chat continued at length from there, creating a type of "Who's on First" for the modern complexified age. 

There's absolutely nothing unusual about public "discussions" like this. This sort of thing has been the norm for decades now—and given the way we humans are wired, no one seems to notice or care. 

Our final query: 

Many people were watching at home. Did anyone have the slightest idea what these titans were talking about?

EVASION(S): Compagno agrees with what he said!

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2026

Our discourse is built on evasions: Starting at 6 o'clock sharp, the yukking-it-up was nearly general over today's Morning Joe.

In fairness, Joe Scarborough has crafted a program which, on balance and in our opinion, is the most intelligent cable news program in the American firmament. (All in all, we'd have to say that the competition isn't even real close.)

Still, there are times when the MoJo crew can't seem to help themselves. Life can still be highly enjoyable in a failing nation when you're paid an extremely high salary, and the recipients of those extremely large salaries sometimes just wanna have fun. 

In a curious way, it reminds us of Chekhov's description—admittedly, in translation—of the sexually promiscuous Gurov. The description is offered right at the start of Chekhov's greatest-story-ever-written candidate, The Lady with the Lapdog: 

At every new meeting with an attractive woman, he forgot all about [previous bitter] experience, he wanted to enjoy life so much, and it all seemed so simple and amusing.

He wanted to enjoy life so much! Gurov changes as this widely praised story unfolds—but every once in a while, the high-end gaggle on Morning Joe seems to forget about the situation we all find ourselves in. 

On such occasions, they chuckle and joke and gambol and play. If only for one brief shining moment, it all seems so simple and amusing! 

Yesterday morning, out in reality, we spoke about a pitiful "sifting" which took place on Sunday morning's Fox & Friends Weekend program.  

One of the friends, Charlie Hurt, had been tasked with reporting a death. Semi-comically, this is what he said:

HURT (3/22/26): Former FBI director and special counsel Robert Mueller, who led the 2016 election interference probe tied to Russia, has died. His family releasing a statement, writing, quote, "With deep sadness, we are sharing the news that Bob passed away. His family asks that their privacy be respected." 

Former President George W. Bush, who nominated Mueller, says he is deeply saddened by the loss and praised him for his service to the country, writing, quote, "Bob transitioned the agency mission to protecting the homeland after September 11. He led it effectively, helping prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil."

While a cause of death has not been released, Mueller battled Parkinson's for several years, He was 81 years old. 

Addressing Red American viewers, Hurt reported what a former president had said about Mueller's death. But in his statement—presumably, it had been crafted by unnamed producers--he sifted out the highly unusual thing the current president had said!

Is something "wrong" with that current president—something which may even be dangerous? Red and Blue elites alike have agreed that we must never ask! 

Blue news orgs won't ask that question. On Red news orgs, we're told that the sitting president is so spectacularly competent that—according to Greg Gutfeld's repeated bumper sticker—we citizens "don't deserve him."

(When Gutfeld emits that bromide, he means it as a compliment to the sitting president—to the person who made that highly unusual remark about Mueller's death.)

Needless to say, that president has made other highly unusual comments in recent days. On Fox, they send waves of messenger children onto the air to disappear these unusual comments—or, on the rare occasion, to affirm the highly unusual things the sitting commander has said. 

Sometimes, the co-hosts affirm the highly unusual statements! So it was that Emily Compagno made the statement we've transcribed below on yesterday's edition of The Five. 

We have no doubt that Compagno was completely sincere in what she said. But to ask a slightly awkward question, in what universe should she be serving as a co-host of our failing nation's most-watched "cable news" program? 

That's a slightly awkward question! At any rate, last evening, on The Five, after a somewhat jumbled prologue, here's what Compagno said:  

COMPAGNO (3/23/26): You know, Trump called the Democrat [sic] Party "America's greatest enemy." And I agree—and how can you not, watching that? 

It was "the enemy within" all over again!  Compagno said she agreed with the president's statement! How can you not, she aked!

(For the record, Compagno was referring to the situation in which TSA workers are currently showing up for work but aren't getting paid.) 

At present, TSA workers aren't getting paid in a timely fashion. (They'll be reimbursed later on.)  Watching that ongoing situation—failing to mention President Trump's emerging role in this situation—Compagno said the sitting president had been right when he offered this highly unusual Truth Social post:

Truth Details 

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump 

Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat [sic] Party! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT 

As we noted yesterday, the president posted that assessment as the weekend ended. Yesterday, on our most-watched "cable news" show, Compagno said she agreed with that highly unusual statement.

"How can you not?" she asked! 

On Sunday, the three friends had disappeared something the president said. On Monday, Compagno repeated this other highly unusual comment, then said she can't imagine how anyone could fail to agree with the president's remark. 

Full disclosure! Over the weekend, we went looking for the real Emily Compagno. We were surprised by the number of interview / profiles we found online, though we won't tell you what they said.

Compagno frequently laughs and smiles. We have no doubt that she's fully sincere. But should she be positioned as co-host on our nation's most-watched news show?

Given the ethos of this failing nation, it's an awkward question you ask!

Yesterday, Red American viewers were shielded from another unusual comment. This comment came from Gerard Baker, former editor-in-chief of the Murdoch empire's Wall Street Journal.

Under the reign of President Trump. "we [Americans] have become Baghdad Bob," Baker had rather remarkably said. That comment wasn't repeated on The Five. It was sifted—disappeared. 

Red American viewers were shielded from the difficulty of knowing what Baker had said. For Mediaite's report about Baker's remarks, you can just click here.

Information can be sifted—can be disappeared. Highly significant, basic news topics can also be disappeared. 

We Blues have frequently disappeared major topics over the past several years. We'll touch on that awkward matter tomorrow. For today, we'll close with one more fact about Compagno.

One week ago, on the March 17 edition of The Five, the gang pretended to discuss James Talarico. Even by the standards of this clownish imitation of a "cable news" program, the comments were hard to believe.

Gutfeld said he was "getting Ted Bundy vibes" from the Texas Senate candidate, Compagno then compared Talarico to a pair of religious cult leaders, including David Koresh of Branch Davidian / Waco fame.

Can a society expect to survive when its discourse functions this way? We plan to transcribe those comments on Thursday morning. But for today, we'll tell you this:

Those astounding comments have gone unmentioned in Blue America. So too with the astounding bogus claims made on March 3—astoundingly bogus claims made by all the messenger children, from Kat Timpf and Gutfeld on down.

In Blue America, our orgs don't want to ask if something is "wrong" with the sitting American president. Those orgs also prefer to pretend that the powerful Fox News Channel doesn't even exist.

As in The Sixth Sense, so too here? Has a society already died when its major orgs function this way?

Tomorrow, we'll talk about one of Blue America's major evasions. On Thursday, we'll force ourselves to transcribe what the co-hosts said about Talarico. Sic semper "news shows" like this!

Gurov emerges profoundly changed. Is it already too late for us? We'll type and let you decide!

Tomorrow: Major Blue evasion

MONDAY: Does Silo Blue ever "sift" the news?

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2026

We'd say the answer is yes: The president's erratic behavior has continued all through this day. That said, we want to explore the claim that news orgs in Blue America may sometimes "sift" the news. 

For the record, what happens when a news org "sifts" the news—when a news org engages in selective reporting? For starters, such news orgs may report the facts which align with preferred tribal storylines, while possibly failing to report other relevant facts which don't. 

In this morning's report, we discussed a fairly obvious bit of "sifting" by the Fox News Channel—more specifically, by the trio of friends who co-host the four-hour morning show, Fox & Friends Weekend. Now, let's turn to the corresponding news report in yesterday's New York Times.

We refer to yesterday's front-page report about the death of Robert Mueller. The lengthy report—essentially, it was an obituary—was written by Tim Weiner, a former national security correspondent for the Times and a highly regarded, best-selling author. 

For starters, credit where due:

In our view, the New York Times frequently tends to disappear the many borderline crazy statements the sitting president posts on Truth Social. In our view, this seems like a way of avoiding the need to report on a very important topic—the possible state of the sitting president's mental / emotional / cognitive health. 

In this case, credit where due! In this case, the president's "jaw-dropping" post about Mueller's death was not disappeared by the Times. Headline included, Weiner's report started like this: 

Robert S. Mueller III, 81, Dies; Rebuilt F.B.I. and Led Trump Inquiry

Robert S. Mueller III, who led the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 12 tumultuous years, brought politically explosive indictments as a special counsel examining Russia’s attack on the 2016 presidential election, and then concluded that he could neither absolve nor accuse President Trump of a crime, died on Friday. He was 81.

His family confirmed the death in a statement but did not say where he died or specify the cause. Last August, the family disclosed publicly that Mr. Mueller was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in the summer of 2021. The law firm WilmerHale, from which Mr. Mueller retired in 2022, said he died on Friday night in Charlottesville, Va.

Mr. Trump remained unforgiving of Mr. Mueller’s investigation even after Mr. Mueller’s death. On learning of it on Saturday, the president posted on Truth Social: “Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!”

Credit where due! On Fox, the highlighted statement had been disappeared. On this occasion, the New York Times sought safety in no such avoidance. 

On the other hand, it had initially seemed to us that yesterday's Times report glossed the facts, in a familiar way, about the last major assignment of Mueller's career. We refer to Mueller's work, alluded to above, "as special counsel in a case where the chief subject of the investigation was the president of the United States." 

Did the Times report gloss some facts about that matter? Weiner's account of the "Mueller report" started off like this: 

The final 448-page report went to [Bill] Barr, who by then was the attorney general, on March 22, 2019. Mr. Mueller had trusted Mr. Barr, his longtime colleague and a family friend, to deliver its conclusions, unvarnished, to the American people. He would be sorely disappointed.

The report concluded that Russia had systemically sought to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that the candidate and his campaign had encouraged their clandestine assistance. It laid out 10 cases in which the president and his aides had sought to impede the F.B.I. investigation. Its key passage read: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” 

But the attorney general, while keeping the text of the report secret, ostensibly to redact sensitive information, announced only that “the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” 

Mr. Trump proclaimed that he had been “totally exonerated.” 

Yesterday, it seemed to us that this passage glossed the facts of this matter. Today, after rereading that part of the Times report, we're still puzzled by what it says. 

As you can see, the passage says that AG Barr failed to include the "key passage" in the Mueller report when he "announced" the statement quoted above, apparently on March 24, 2019. Here's the problem: 

On that same day, Barr sent a four-page letter about the Mueller report to the relevant congressional committees. Its contents were reported by the New York Times that very day—and in the relevant part of the letter, Barr instantly quoted the "key passage" which he supposedly didn't "announce."

Here's the relevant New York Times report. (Headline: "Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction.") The report appeared on the front page of the Times on March 25, 2019, with an online link to the four-page letter. 

The "key passage" quoted by Weiner was instantly cited in that Times report. Unless we misunderstand what Weiner was saying, that "key passage" in the Mueller report was hardly a secret.

We're sorry now that we ever mentioned this (dated) topic this morning. In all honesty, we now have no idea what Weiner and his editors meant by the passage we've posted. 

That said:

Back in real time, we Blues were sure that President Trump surely had to have committed obstruction of justice. From that day right on through yesterday, it has always seemed to us that we Blues proceeded to overstate the degree of perfidy attributable to Barr, in precisely the way yesterday's report seems to have revived.

What were Weiner and his editors referring to in the passage we've posted? At this point, we don't know. But tribal grievances never die in highly tribalized times like these. That fact is put on display every day of the week on the Fox News Channel's highest-rated programs.

We're sorry we brought this up. But yes—Blue orgs, like their Red counterparts, do sometimes "sift" the news. They sometimes report the facts they like while omitting the facts they don't.

As seen on yesterday's Fox & Friends Weekend, Fox News is clownishly sunk in this practice. We'll be exploring such behaviors all week.

In conclusion: In conclusion, credit where due! The New York Times reported the sitting president's extremely strange Truth Social post about Robert Mueller's death! 

All too often (in our view), the timorous newspaper fails to report such potentially worrying conduct by the sitting president.