Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John, Pam Bondi's firing was long overdue in my opinion- January first would had been the time to do so. She leaves a bad taste and much confusion with the Epstein files and her initial verbiage and handling of it all; an earlier firing would had helped the Republicans going into the mid-terms as folks would had long forgotten her face by now. Same goes for Kristi Noem. Better late than never. These two women hurt Pres. Trump's ratings much more than he realizes. My question to you is do you believe these women were more controversial than if a man had held these positions? — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. I didn’t shed any tears for Pam Bondi, of course, but as I told one of the commenters on this website the other day, Bondi wasn’t fired for being incompetent (which she was) or being a terrible AG (which she also was). Trump fired her for not being terrible ENOUGH. His beef was that she wasn’t aggressive enough in perverting our legal system to punish his perceived political opponents, and protect his from the Epstein political fallout (which he can thank MAGA influencers for — including his current FBI Director Kash Patel). In other words, despite Bondi completely discrediting the office and herself for Trump, it wasn’t (as Bernie discussed in this week’s “Off the Cuff”) enough for him. He wanted her to be more corrupt. She wasn’t (or couldn’t be), so he fired her.

As for the midterms, I don’t think Bondi and Noem will make (or would have made) a difference. And I don’t think their gender played a role in them being controversial.

John: It’s the beginning of April, so that means tax season. Again this year, my wife and I are going through the herculean task of gathering all documents, receipts, etc. to submit to the tax preparer. Even though we don’t do our own taxes, I still consider this an autopsy of my finances without the benefit of death. We hear a lot about raising taxes in blue states and lowering taxes in red states, but I think that misses half the point. I would actually be willing to pay slightly MORE taxes if this whole process were greatly simplified for time and clarity. The older I get, the more I value time equal to or greater than money. Have you seen any proposals lately to simplify the tax code, and do you agree that this would go a long way towards clarity of the whole exercise of taxation? — Steve R.

I feel your pain, Steve. The work I do for this website/membership is just one several contracted jobs I have (in addition to author royalties/expenses, freelance writing, etc). My accountant probably hates me due to the complex nature of my tax situation, but I suppose that’s my cross to bear for being (as Bernie calls me) The Renascence Man of the Rocky Mountains.

I’m all for a simplified tax code, and I’ve heard lots of proposals over the years for making it happen, but they unfortunately never come to fruition, in large part due to political interests. In other words, Steve, I think this will continue to be a pain in the butt.

Sir John — what are your thoughts on Pope Leo’s homily about Jesus ignoring the prayers of those who wage war? On the one hand, it appears that he’s speaking about Trump. That’s fine. But I would take him more seriously if he had the guts to criticize the Islamic regime and what they did when they slaughtered their own citizens protesting in the streets, and then afterwards they executed a star wrestler simply for dissension. Okay so the Mullahs and IRGC aren’t Christians, nor do I believe that Jesus is pro war. But I can’t help wondering if the Pontiff would have made the same homily in 1941. —“All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance…While The Iranian Citizens Are Being Slaughtered By Their Rulers” regard from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. This may sound weird, but I’ve never put much personal stock in what Popes say about the morality of war (unless it’s specifically about war crimes), because of how complicated and individualized of an issue it is (geopolitically and beyond). Like you, I don’t believe that Jesus is pro-war, but many times throughout history it has been war that has ultimately saved scores of people from genocide, or liberated them from terrible suffering. Though I do think Pope Leo was addressing Trump’s threats to commit war crimes, he also got more broadly into the morality of war (which again, is complicated).

If I recall, Pope Leo did comment on the mass-murder of Iranian protests, but did in so in broad terms (emphasizing peace, dialogue, and an end to the suffering of civilians) without specifically naming the Iranian regime. Was it a cop-out not to name them? Maybe/probably. But for what it’s worth, I don’t think he specifically named Trump either. Regardless, like I said, I don’t hang on a Pope’s words when it comes to this issue.

You’re exactly right about Vance with Orban. What a disgrace. In regard to the flaming hypocrisy of his “election interference” comments, he’s STILL out there doing it. He told a Hungarian interviewer: “You should never have a foreign head of state threatening the head of government of an allied nation. It's preposterous, it's unacceptable.” TRUMP HAS DONE THIS TIME AFTER TIME. Does Vance honestly not understand how ridiculous he sounds? — Ben G.

I think Vance is smart enough understand exactly how hypocritical and shameless these comments are, Ben. He just doesn’t care. As we’ve seen time after time (including specifically with Vance), there’s no penalty for double-standards and breathtaking hypocrisy in today’s U.S. politics (let alone lies). Thus, there’s nothing keeping those things from getting worse — except for personal shame (which Vance, and many other politicians on both sides of the aisle, no longer have).

What are your thoughts on Thomas Massie? Did you ever expect him to become a Trump opponent in the GOP? — Alex D.

I don’t like Massie. Like a broken clock, he gets a couple of things right, but I mostly view him as a conspiracy-nut provocateur who — up until recently — was overly servile to the guy he’s now become of an “opponent” of. Am I surprised that he (and others like MTG) have taken on this new role? Maybe a little, but they were perfectly fine (and eager) to go along with some of Trump’s worst instincts (at times when it mattered more).

Hi John, has Trump lost his mind completely?

“There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

What are your thoughts on the US committing war crimes by attacking civilian infrastructure such as water desalination plants, bridges and power plants? Will Trump Join Putin and Netanyahu on the ICC’s most wanted list?” Fun video explainer.

Can acting AG Todd Blanche’s slobbering love affair with Donald Trump get any more sickening and cringeworthy? Blanche publicly prostrated himself in front of the entire media, affirming his “love” and subservience to the President. I have never seen a more spineless display of toadying in my life, and that’s saying a lot with this current administration. — FDM

Lots to answer there, FDM. Lol. I’ll address one question at time.

Longtime readers know that I’ve long believed Trump to be psychologically/emotionally/temperamentally unfit to be president, and I do think it’s getting worse as he gets older. (And before newer readers throw “What about Biden???” at me, I argued, while Biden was in office, that he was so mentally unfit that he should have resigned rather than try to run for a second term). I’ve always believed that a U.S. president’s words matter, and while one could argue that a president presenting oneself as insane could effectively scare our enemies into compliance, what I’ve seen with recent developments surrounding the Strait of Hormuz (and the broader Iran situation) isn’t exactly compliance.

To my knowledge, Trump hasn’t committed any war crimes (though he spoke of possibly doing such, which was bad in itself, but not an international crime).

As for Blanche: Yes, it can absolutely get worse, but it’s hyper-embarrassing at its current level. As I’m often reminded, there is no bottom.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“Sharks aren’t the problem. Jaws is.”

Editor’s note: Today’s 50-year-old news clip his poor audio-quality, so we suggest that you turn up your volume all the way.

By August of 1975, the newly released Steven Spielberg film-classic, Jaws, was smashing box-office records and already having a major impact on American culture. It was driving many people’s fear of sharks through the roof… and also driving beach-community tourist bureaus nuts! They believed that irrational fears stoked by the movie were keeping visitors away from their beaches, and they were looking for ways to deal with the situation.

I covered one such community — Carolina Beach, North Carolina — for CBS News.

What gets me, while revisiting this report, is how the individuals we filmed and interviewed both look and sound like they could have been actual characters in the film.

Read more

Not all that long ago, it was considered wholly improper for an elected representative of the United States to campaign for a foreign leader — especially on their home turf. But earlier this week, Vice President JD Vance did exactly that. Making it especially gross was who that leader was: an unapologetic supporter of Vladimir Putin and outspoken opponent of Western civilization, policies, and governance.

I’m talking, of course, about Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary. He’s currently running for a fifth consecutive term, and polls suggest it’s a very tight race. Orbán’s erosion of democratic institutions and the rule of law, along with economic stagnation in his country, have voters considering a new direction. In a move of desperation, Orbán presumably called upon his buddy, President Trump, for a helping hand. Vance was apparently tasked to publicly extend it.

Critics of the move have pointed out that beyond Trump’s personal affection for the strongman leader, the United States and its allies would gain nothing from Orbán winning reelection. In fact, Orbán has been deepening Hungary’s ties with China, and obstructing the Trump administration’s preferred Ukraine policy of letting Europe take the lead role in supporting Ukraine against its Russian invaders. He’s also been delaying sanctions packages against Russia.

Russia certainly has a vested interest in Orbán staying in power; the United States does not.

But it’s even worse than that…

In Vance’s Budapest campaign speech, the vice president went as far as parroting Kremlin propaganda that Ukraine has been interfering in foreign elections, including those of Hungary… and the United States.

“This is just what they do,” Vance told reporters. “This is part of the cost of doing business within some elements of their system. I try to remind myself that Ukraine, like the United States, is a very complicated place. There are good people and there are bad people. There are people that try to interfere in others’ elections. And there are people who actually just say, you know what, we believe in sovereignty for everybody. And that’s what we support. For example, there were people in the Ukrainian system who were campaigning with Democrats literally in the weeks before the presidential election where Donald Trump won very comfortably in November of 2024.”

Of course, that didn’t happen. That is, unless one wants to argue that President Zelenskyy touring a Pennsylvania ammunition factory alongside local Democratic leaders was a campaign event. For Zelenskyy, it was an opportunity to thank American workers (who were producing shells for Ukraine) for helping defend is country against its Russian invaders.

As shameful as Vance’s comments were, one could simply add them to our vice president’s long history of expressed, inexplicable, personal animosity toward Ukraine and Zelenskyy. But what stood out in this instance was the glaring irony of Vance’s claim.

Vance, that very day in Budapest, was openly doing exactly what he accused Ukrainians of doing: campaigning for a foreign leader. In his speech, Vance even specifically called on Hungarians to “go to the polls” and “stand with Viktor Orbán.” He also voice-conferenced President Trump into the event, who told attendees (and Hungarians watching at home): “I’m a big fan of Viktor. I’m with him all the way. The United States is with him all the way.”

By Vance’s own framing, that is election interference. Thus, doesn’t that make him and Trump two of the “bad people” he spoke of?

“It’s like a Prohibitionist pastor railing against that ol’ demon rum between shots of whiskey,” remarked The Dispatch’s Jonah Goldberg.

Sadly, expecting our political leaders to be mindful of their own hypocrisy is a pointless, bipartisan exercise in today’s politics. But shouldn’t we still expect our leaders to prioritize America’s interests over those of Russia?

It doesn’t feel like a lot to ask for.

Share

Are you into mystery/thriller fiction?

“John Daly has a magical writing style, and his books keep you up late at night turning pages.” — Dana Perino, The Five

For a limited time, my novel “From a Dead Sleep” (book one in the Sean Coleman Thriller series) is just $1.99 on Amazon Kindle!

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the recent dismissal of Attorney General Pam Bondi, and what it says about President Trump (and working in his administration).

Share

Read more

Here’s the thing about politicians: They talk tough when it costs them nothing — and when reality hits them in the face, they sing a very different tune.

Take Kathy Hochul. Back in 2022, while campaigning for governor of New York, she had a message for Donald Trump and like-minded Republicans: “Just jump on a bus and head down to Florida where you belong. OK? Get out of town. Because you don’t represent our values.”

So much for Democratic inclusivity — to say nothing about their supposed open-mindedness. What better way to say everyone is welcome here than telling your political opponents to pack up and leave the state.

Well, fast forward a bit — and surprise, surprise —people actually took her advice. Not just Trump. Not just Republicans. Not just the hated billionaires. Regular, tax-paying New Yorkers looked around, checked their bank accounts, looked again at their tax bills … and said, “You know what? Florida sounds pretty good.”

Read more

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Greetings, sir, John: what do you think of the No Kings protestors? For that matter, is it true that many of these protestors were being paid by very wealthy Communists? The types of people that want to take everything from the rich, but stay wealthy themselves? —“April Fools March For No Kings” regards from The Emperor

To be honest, Emperor, I paid even less attention to the most recent No Kings protests than I did the ones the preceded them. But my general assessment of “the movement” is that, like similar ones, it’s a hodgepodge of normal people, weirdos, and radicals. Were some protestors paid by “very wealthy communists”? Maybe. I’m assuming there are stories indicating as much (which is why you asked)? What I do know is that a number of people I know personally have gone to these things, and I can assure you that no one has been paying them to.

John: Politics and the courts are often downstream from culture, so I am curious about your thoughts regarding two legal decisions recently, one in your home state. The Supreme Court ruled this week against Colorado's "conversion therapy" ban. Also, a California jury found Meta and YouTube liable for the mental health issues of a woman who became addicted to the dopamine hits that social media companies program into their algorithm. Do you think these decisions will have legs and far-reaching consequences? What about the moral and legal issues that serve as undercurrents? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. I think politics are certainly more downstream from culture than our courts, but I can certainly think of examples of what you’re talking about.

Anyway, regardless of what one thinks about “conversion therapy,” I think it’s pretty clear that Colorado’s ban violated the First Amendment. The SCOTUS ruling was a victory for free speech.

I don’t know much about the California case, but the ruling, as you describe it, seems pretty ludicrous on its face. I have all kinds of criticism for social-media and its algorithms, but finding these companies liable of damages related to screen-addiction feels like a very slippery legal slope. I can picture lots others now trying to get in on the action.

Why is Vice President Vance going to Hungary next week to campaign for Viktor Orban? — Alex D.

The White House is trying to portray the planned joint-remarks as something other than that, Alex, but you’re right: It’s a campaign endorsement. And it’s both inappropriate and pretty gross (considering who Orban is).

Unfortunately, both Trump and the Postliberal Right (of which Vance is part of) have a crush on Orban. With Trump, I’m sure part of the appeal is their mutual affection for Vladimir Putin, but a lot of it has to do with Orban’s autocratic tendencies. Trump and Vance want him to stay in power for reasons that just aren’t in America’s interest.

Did I see you dissing Chuck Norris on X the other day, John? You do know he once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, right? RIP

Lol! Chuck was an American icon (and by all accounts, a very nice guy). RIP. But yeah, his acting was always pretty rough.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“There’s an awful lot of crudeness out there, in the street and all over our pop-culture.”

In 1998, I anchored a CBS prime-time documentary called “In Your Face, America.” It was an hour-long report about the coarsening of our country, and how vulgar and uncivil our popular culture was becoming. This was well illustrated, at the time, by junky, combative, daytime talk-shows (that I covered in one of the segments).

A lot of that crudeness may seem quaint by today’s standards, but people like former United States Secretary of Education, Bill Bennett (who I interviewed for the documentary), used to be very concerned about the social corrosion. (I say “used to,” because he changed quite a bit at the beginning of this political era). I also talked to Sally Jessy Raphael, a popular daytime talk-show host (who many of you will remember).

Read more

Last week, The Dispatch’s Steve Hayes wrote a fascinating (and entertaining) long-form piece on a hotly contested (but little reported on) GOP primary race in Florida’s 19^th Congressional District. Rep. Byron Donalds currently holds the seat, but he’ll be giving it up to run to be Florida’s next governor. The district leans heavily Republican and pro-Trump, so whoever wins the contest will assuredly go on to win the general election.

The candidates, as Hayes describes, are quite an entangled collection of hardcore MAGA faithfuls.

Perhaps the most recognizable name among them is Madison Cawthorn, who’d previously represented North Carolina’s 11^th District for a single term (from 2021 to 2023). He had plans on staying in that office longer, but a few reelection snafus prevented that from happening. By “snafus,” I’m referring to Cawthorn’s unsubstantiated (and later recanted) claims of being pressured into attending cocaine-fueled congressional orgies on Capitol Hill, the public emergence of photos of him wearing women’s lingerie, and multiple videos showing him simulating sex acts with men (one of whom was allegedly his cousin).

It was a little too weird for Cawthorn’s former constituents, who voted him out in the primary. A week after that defeat, the House Ethics Committee announced that Cawthorn was under investigation for an inappropriate relationship with a male staffer (his second cousin) and a conflicting interest with a cryptocurrency business.

Now a Floridian, Cawthorn is presumably tanned, rested, and ready to give the U.S. Congress another try.

Also running for the Florida House seat is another former congressional representative, Chris Collins. Collins served New York’s 27^th Congressional District for a few terms before insider-trading charges resulted in his resignation and imprisonment. He was supposed to spend over two years in the clink, but Donald Trump pardoned him just a couple months into his sentence.

Believe it or not, Collins isn’t the only individual in the race who was pardoned by President Trump. He shares that apparent honor with fellow candidate, John Strand, a California transplant whose biggest political notoriety, prior to running for Florida’s 19^th, was as an unapologetic January 6 rioter.

Strand (who possibly attended Madison Cawthorn’s vitriolic “Stop the Steal” speech that day) was convicted of multiple crimes for his conduct at the U.S. Capitol, including a felony (for which he served prison time). As with several hundred other J6ers, Trump would later absolve Strand of his legal sins. Strand not only walked away with his freedom, but also a slogan he’s currently using in his campaign ads: “Let’s storm the Capitol for real.”

The good news for fans of law and order is that the remaining candidates don’t have much of a criminal record. Most have instead established themselves as geographically-diverse professional political candidates.

Ola Hawatmeh is a MAGA influencer and former New York congressional hopeful. Catalina Lauf is a multi-time congressional candidate, who ran unsuccessful campaigns in three different Florida districts before trying her hand at the 19th. Prior to moving to Florida, she ran for congress in Illinois, where she was defeated in the GOP primary by a guy named Jim Oberweis. Oberweis would go on to lose the general election, and move to Florida… where he’s currently running once again against Laur — this time in the 19th.

As Steve Hayes describes in his piece, Oberweis “has run and lost so many times that he’s known in Illinois as the ‘Milk dud.’ Oberweis ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2002 and 2004. He ran for governor in 2006. He ran for the House in the 14^th Congressional District in 2008 (in a special election and the regular election). He ran for the U.S. Senate again in 2014, winning the GOP primary and losing to Sen. Dick Durbin.”

Also in the race are Linda Sawyer (who ran unsuccessfully in three different Michigan congressional districts over four cycles), recent New Jersey arrival Dylan Modarelli, and former Marine Mike Pedersen.

Oh, and there’s also Jim Schwartzel, a fellow who owns a local country music station called “Trump Country.” He and Pedersen are the only two candidates who’ve lived in Florida’s 19^th district for some time.

What everyone in the race has in common is their expressed adoration of President Trump. As Hayes documents in his piece, it’s pretty much the entirety of each of their arguments for why they should win the nomination: They love Trump more than their primary competitors do.

Case in point, there hasn’t been much in the way of voter outreach or campaign events. The only real campaigning going on, as Hayes describes, has been the campaign for Trump’s endorsement (which everyone agrees would effectively decide the nomination). The effort has included adopting Trump’s policies wholesale, parroting Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen, attending events in celebration of Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and landing air-time on Fox News (Trump’s go-to network) to further sing the president’s praises. Chris Collins has gone as far as claiming he was targeted by prosecutors not for the commission of a crime, but rather for being too effective of a servant to Trump.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

Or course, one might ask why any of this matters (beyond entertainment value). If a congressional district is so reliably pro-Trump that criminals, disgraced former leaders, and failed politicians converge there — from around the country — in hopes of becoming a reliable pro-Trump vote, flatterer, and pseudo-celebrity in Washington, isn’t that the prerogative of everyone involved?

The answer to that question is yes. If the only standard constituents choose to hold their representative to is that of unconditional loyalty to Donald Trump, it’s hard to imagine voters in Florida’s 19th will be disappointed with any of these contenders.

But here’s my question: Shouldn’t voters expect more — especially those who still consider themselves conservatives in our system of divided government?

Our national debt is about to surpass $40 trillion — double the amount it was when Trump first took office. Yet, like the Democrats, Trump still opposes reforming the federal entitlement programs that are the major drivers of our debt. He’s signed more debt-spending into law than any president in U.S. history (and it’s not even close).

Is the rapidly approaching insolvency of Social Security and Medicare not of any concern to today’s Republican Party? How about a catastrophic debt crisis? Is loyalty to Trump really all that matters, at least for the next few years? Shouldn’t our congressional representatives be thinking more about America’s future than live-in-the-moment rump-kissing?

Trump’s trade war has been a major drag on the U.S. economy. The numbers don’t lie. His tariffs have cost us jobs, driven up prices and government subsidies, raised taxes on the American people, and alienated safe and previously reliable trade partners — all while achieving none of the goals the administration promised. Congress could put and end to this failed experiment tomorrow, and the GOP could right the ship and reclaim its “free trade” mantle.

Is personal loyalty to Donald Trump really more important than the health of the U.S. economy? He’d still be our president, after all, even with more principled conservatives in the Republican Congress occasionally voting against his worst ideas.

Sure, the race in Florida’s 19^th is uniquely cartoonish because of the candidates’ pasts… But purely in the realm of congressional representation, is it really all that different than the GOP primaries currently taking place throughout the rest of the country?

Maybe that’s something to think about when it’s time for you to vote in this year’s local primary.

Share

Reminder: This is the last day that free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives!

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the record number of voters that are becoming independents, and what that could mean for the rest of the Trump presidency.

Share

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

If a 13-year old girl, enrolled in a public school, wants to be referred to as he and him, and wants to alter her appearance to look more like a boy than a girl … does her mother have a right to know what’s going at that school when it comes to her child?

That’s not a hypothetical question. In Maine, that’s precisely what happened.

“While cleaning her 13-year-old daughter’s room in 2022, Amber Lavigne found a chest binder. A social worker at the eighth-grader’s school in Maine had given the child the device, which flattens breasts to facilitate a masculine appearance. Unbeknownst to Lavigne, at school her daughter was using masculine pronouns.” That, from a column by George Will.

The girls’ mother confronted school officials — and was told that the school counselor did nothing wrong. So she sued the school board for violating her rights as a parent — and lost twice (on technical grounds) in federal court. Now she wants the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

“This was no accident: my daughter’s public school counselor deliberately tried to keep me in the dark, encouraging my daughter’s gender transition and encouraging her to hide it from me,” Amber Lavigne says. “When school officials found out, they actually defended the counselor’s actions, trampling on my constitutional rights at every turn. I deserve to know what’s happening to my child — the secrecy needs to stop.”

Read more

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John: I was reading Friday that CBS, once a pioneer in the business, is ending its radio service. This makes me sad, as it is the end of an era and a piece of Americana. Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, Dan Rather, and Peggy Noonan (as a writer for Rather) all got their starts in CBS Radio. I was once a general manager of a couple of small-town radio stations and still enjoy the magic and intimacy of terrestrial radio. Maybe this is more a question for Bernie, but what are your thoughts and reflections on this news and the future of radio in general? — Steve R.

Yeah, that really is a better question for Bernie, Steve. Lol. I’ve never listened to CBS Radio, nor did I ever really get my news through the radio medium. Radio, in general, does seem to be slowly fading out of existence, as more and more people turn to streaming services. I suspect it will eventually go away all together (at least as we know it), unless it finds a way to hang on, in some limited fashion, as a novelty attraction (similar to drive-in movies).

What do you think about Jimmy Kimmel mocking Senator Markwayne Mullin for being a plumber? — Daniel R.

I thought it was very cheap and elitist, Daniel. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Mullin (I’m not a fan), but dismissing him as a “plumber” for a punchline was snobbish and willfully ignorant. Mullin took over his family's small, six-employee plumbing business after his father's health went down the tubes, and he turned it into the biggest plumbing service company in his state. And it was just one of eight companies he owned. That’s a very impressive resume, even if you don’t like Mullin as a politician.

John, what's with your dismay of Tulsi Gabbard? — Al

Not too many years before she was our National Intelligence Director (including when she was a Democratic member of Congress), Tulsi Gabbard was essentially a propagandist/apologist for tyrannical enemies of the United States, including Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Her “useful idiot” role should have kept her from being given any presidential-cabinet position, let alone that of National Intelligence Director. But because she kissed up to Trump (on Fox News and elsewhere) and trashed her former party a whole lot, Trump nominated her, and the GOP Senate confirmed her.

Just weeks after becoming secretary, she absurdly testified, under oath, that Iran was not working on a nuclear-weapons program (the very nuclear-weapons program Trump would drop bombs on a few months later). Since then, amidst much speculation that she’s been leaking information from the administration to the press, the White House has apparently insulated Gabbard from serious national intelligence matters (despite her being the director), and placed her on 2020 election conspiracy-theory investigations, rather than taking the appropriate action of removing her from office. If she had any dignity, she’d resign. If the administration took her position seriously, they’d fire her. I’m hoping one of those things happens soon, and I suspect it just might.

Greetings, Sir John — recently Hasan Piker and a bunch of virtue signaling leftist groups, such as Code Pink, went to Cuba to stay in a 5-Star Hotel and “help” the suffering Cuban people who are alleged victims of America. Even the Irish band Kneecap was there performing in concert. Ironically, as it turns out, these wealthy left-wing American liberal fools ended up, causing a power outage from the concert, causing people in the hospitals on ventilators to lose power and die. How do you feel about this and why do these liberal Marxist idiots continue to blind themselves with the virtue signaling that is doing nothing but causing problems? —“Power OUTAGE To The People!” regards from The Emperor

The part about them causing a power outage and killing people seems to be a hoax, Emperor (I discovered that with a simple online search). As for performative political activism, I’m not a fan. It’s typically far more about getting personal attention than helping anyone who’s legitimately suffering. That was certainly the case this time.

By the way, I hadn’t heard of this Piker guy until just a few months ago, but every time he pops up on my radar, it’s because he does or says something idiotic.

Since it became a topic this week, is there anyone whose death you would publicly celebrate? — Ben G.

Oh, maybe a mass murderer’s, or someone of that nature… though I can’t remember a time when I’ve actually ever celebrated anyone’s death.

Did president Trump just go full TACO with Iran? Was he caught out as a liar in regards to discussions with “Iran’s Leadership” who flatly deny ever having discussions with his administration (even through back channels)? Or is Iran lying? Who is responsible for the current airport chaos inflicting misery on travelers? Surely it can’t be the government in power?? — FDM

I’m not sure what’s going to happen with Iran, FDM. Like I said on this week’s podcast, there’s been lots of mixed signals about the administration’s goals for, and commitment to, this war. As for who’s being dishonest, I don’t know. Trump tells plenty of lies, but the Iranian regime obviously does as well. As for the airport chaos, I’m not sure you can pin it all on one party, or even one factor, but I do think the Dems are more to blame than the Republicans, since they’ve tied DHS funding to ICE reforms (which has been a big part of the hangup).

I saw your post on X about this year’s National Park pass, and I LOL’d. I honestly thought you made that photo yourself, but it’s real! I guess plastering his name and face all over U.S. memorials, federal offices, Bibles, U.S. coins, U.S. currency, and stimulus checks wasn’t enough. Did you follow through with the purchase? — Alex D.

Lol. Now, I’m going to have to explain this, Alex, so readers know what you’re talking about.

Every year, my wife and I purchase an America the Beautiful National Park pass (we go to multiple national parks throughout the year (including nearby Rocky Mountain National Park), and the pass saves us a lot of money. The card design is known for featuring beautiful National Park wildlife and scenery.

Here’s what past annual cards looked like:

But when I logged into the National Park website the other day, to purchase the 2026 card, I discovered that this is what it looks like:

No, that’s not satire. That’s the actual “America-250” card, featuring — as you say — more of the same. Breathtakingly beautiful aesthetics, huh? Really captures the spirit of our national parks and federal lands. Anyway, I’ll complete the purchase next week when my current pass expires.

In the meantime, I’ll leave you all with some pictures I took last week in Rocky Mountain National Park (it was a great day)…

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

“You said you wanted straight answers to straight questions… She can’t give straight answers because she’s too vulnerable.”

In recognition of all the new members who recently subscribed to this website after my appearance with Bill O’Reilly (thanks again!), I figured I’d take this week’s Bernie’s Time Machine trip back to The O’Reilly Factor — this time on November 3, 2016 (just a few days before the presidential election).

Hillary Clinton was leading in national polls, but important state polls were a bit tighter. The Clinton and Trump campaigns were both avoiding the media, perhaps afraid they’d make a last-minute, unforced error — Hillary because of her latest trouble with the FBI, and Trump (if I remember correctly) because of the Access Hollywood Tape controversy.

I spoke to Bill about the situation.

Read more

Bernie Goldberg and John Daly discuss the media taking sides on the Iran War, Brendan Carr abusing his power at the FCC, President Trump’s controversial remark about Robert Mueller’s passing, and more.

Show Notes:

• Bernie’s column on liberals in the media rooting for failure in Iran

• John’s column on President Trump’s Mueller remark

• Upgrade to a paid subscription (50% off an annual membership!)

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives!

If Democrats were ventriloquists, journalists would be the dummies sitting on their laps.

Harsh? Sure, but well deserved.

Democrats were rooting for the war in Iran to go south about 10 seconds after the first U.S. missiles hit their targets. Maybe sooner. Ditto for journalists.

An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that runs under the headline, “On Iran, Is only Bad News Fit to Print?,” nails it:

“Journalists have a right and a duty to report bad news and to question Pollyannaish reports from the U.S. government. But many seem to be going beyond that and rooting for America to lose—against an enemy that is the world’s biggest state sponsor of terror, that has killed thousands of unarmed protesters, and that stockpiled thousands of ballistic missiles while seeking nuclear weapons, which its rulers promised to use against the U.S. and Israel.”

The author of those words is not some Trump loyalist wearing a bright red hat. The column is by Mark Penn, who was an advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton, and by Andrew Stein, a former New York City Council President — a Democrat, if that even needs to be said.

They go on to say that, “Largely absent are even the most basic stories analyzing Iran’s losses and the fate of their supposed leadership. Why? What seems to be driving the coverage is reportorial partisanship and the Democrats’ determination to oppose this president no matter what he does.”

Those last few words sum it up: Democrats hate Donald Trump and so they are determined to oppose him “no matter what he does.” And their allies in the media also loathe him so they put the worst spin possible on whatever he does.

But let’s pretend President Trump did something very different regarding Iran. Let’s say he concluded, just as Democrats and so many liberal journalists have concluded, that there was no imminent threat to the United States and that no action against Iran was warranted.

Now, let’s assume one more thing: That Mr. Trump’s inaction resulted in tragedy. A few more words from a Democrat, this time from prominent New York lawyer David Boies, in another WSJ column.

“If he [Trump] hadn’t acted,” Boies writes, “his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb.”

Imagine that — a nuclear bomb hitting Europe or the United States. Or maybe a dirty bomb that made its way into a European city or into New York or Washington or Los Angeles or a hundred other U.S. cities big and small in a suitcase or a carry-on bag. The result would be devastating.

And who do you think Democrats and the little dummies sitting on their laps would blame for that? You don’t have to be Captain Obvious to know the answer.

So let’s review: Donald Trump gets blamed for starting this war and he’d get blame for not starting it if his inaction ended badly.

Democrats and their PR arm in the media figure it this way: Heads they win, tails Trump loses.

Except at least half the country doesn’t trust either of them.

Share

Over the weekend, after a five-year battle with Parkinson's disease, Robert Mueller passed away at the age of 81.

Mueller was a longtime public servant, who held a number of high-profile federal-government positions throughout his impressive career, including as our sixth director of the FBI (from 2001 to 2013). As former President George W. Bush stated in remembrance, Mueller, who took the helm a mere week before the 9/11 attacks, transitioned the bureau’s mission to protecting the homeland, and helped prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

As a young man in 1968, Mueller, a recent Princeton graduate at the time, volunteered to fight for our country in the Vietnam War. He was so committed to serving in the theater that he waited a year for a knee injury to heal, so that he would be accepted into the military. A U.S. Marine Corps officer, he led a rifle platoon and earned a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, and two Navy Commendation Medals.

Mueller was married to his one and only wife, Ann, for 60 years. They had two daughters and three grandchildren.

On Saturday, shortly after the announcement of his passing, and the beginning of his family’s mourning, President Trump publicly celebrated Mueller’s death.

“Good, I’m glad he’s dead,” Trump posted on social media. “He could no longer hurt innocent people!”

Lots of observers (including Trump supporters) expressed shock at the incredibly callous statement, but it’s hard to imagine anyone was truly surprised. This is what Trump does. This is who he is. In his mind, anyone he perceives as an adversary is neither worthy of respect nor basic human decency — even in death. The same goes for their families.

“This is the kind of stuff Trump does that makes people not just oppose him but hate him,” remarked Fox News’s Brit Hume. “There was no need to say anything.”

Indeed there wasn’t, but as we saw with John McCain, Donald Trump (who sought and received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War era — including one for bone spurs) seems to hold a particular animus toward “adversaries” who are widely recognized as patriots and war heroes.

Of course, it shouldn’t really matter why our president didn’t like Robert Mueller — not for this discussion, anyway. Trump doesn’t have (nor is he expected) to like anyone he doesn’t want to. But for the sake of many Trump loyalists — those who feel inclined to rationalize anything and everything that comes out of our president’s mouth or keyboard (as they’re doing again this time) — it’s probably worth noting what, exactly, was behind Trump’s beef with Mueller.

From 2017 to 2019, Mueller led the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in our 2016 election. The investigation included (but was by no means limited to) possible collusion between Trump, Trump associates, and the Russian government.

Contrary to popular MAGA belief, Mueller didn’t start the investigation, create the special counsel, or seek to lead it. The investigation had been ongoing for months before Mueller’s involvement, conducted by the FBI under the leadership of the Trump Justice Department. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the Republican-led Senate, was compelled to create the special counsel in response to Trump's controversial firing of FBI Director James Comey. Rosenstein assigned Mueller to lead the team.

Mueller had a sterling reputation, and his appointment received broad bipartisan support at the time, including from high-profile MAGA cheerleaders like Newt Gingrich. But Trump, likely motivated in part by the reckless assurances of liberal pundits and Democrats that Mueller would indict Trump at any moment, made Mueller his enemy. He publicly smeared Mueller at every turn, insisting that he was a vindictive, anti-Trump partisan who was running a corrupt investigation with the sole purpose of taking him down. Trump and his loyalists declared the probe to be illegitimate, and a vicious attack on our very democracy.

But as it turned out, Mueller effectively exonerated the president. He concluded there was insufficient evidence showing collusion between Trump and Russia, as well as insufficient evidence to charge Trump for obstruction. Mueller did unearth other criminal wrongdoing related to Russian inference, and got indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies.

In the wake of the final report, Trump himself, to the surprise of many, even praised Mueller for doing an honorable job (before turning on him again shortly after).

The Durham Report later identified abuses and biases within the FBI that had improperly altered the scope of the original investigation, but again, that had nothing to do with Mueller. He came in later.

But the fact that he came in at all is why Trump hated the man. Mueller had the gall to step up and serve his country, when called upon, in a way that Trump didn’t like. Thus, he remained a villain to the president and MAGA-world until his dying day (and beyond). To a certain type of person, adding to the pain of that man’s family, while they grieve their loss, is not only understandable but entirely defensible.

Donald Trump is demonstrably that type of person, but you don’t have to be.

Share

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John: Simple question this week - Are you for or against keeping the senate filibuster? — Steve R.

I’m for keeping it. I’ve been consistent on that position, regardless of which party holds the Senate majority. I think Senate approval should require a stronger consensus than that of the House.

Sir John, Do you think it would be a beneficial strategic move for the U.S. military & the IDF to take control of Kharg Island in this current conflict? Also why did Trump ask for assistance from our NATO allies with keeping the Straits of Hormuz safe if, as Trump claims, “we really don’t need their help? — “Strait FLUSH Kharg-GO!” Regards from The Emperor

I don’t know enough about the pros, cons, and military logistics to offer an educated opinion on Kharg Island, Emperor. As for Trump, he loves to treat our NATO allies like crap, and claim the alliance has been useless to the United States (despite lots of examples — including deceased soldiers — that prove otherwise). Now, he’s mad that some of those allies, after all the bullying and berating he’s done of them since returning to office last year, are reluctant to help with a war he didn’t even bother consulting them on beforehand. It’s a mess of his own creation, and if he doesn’t effectively kill NATO before the end of this term, the alliance will likely require years of repair by future U.S. presidents.

John, Given that Iran vowed retaliation for decades to come, do you see another military action taking place when Pres Trump is out of office? No one will ever be as brave, bold, and ballsy as this administration. — Susan H.

I would love to believe, Susan, that by the end of this Trump term, the current regime will be no more, and Iran will no longer be a state sponsor of terrorism or a nuclear threat. However, there are too many unknowns (at this point) for me to say, with confidence, that that will be the case. (I certainly hope it will). If not, I can definitely picture a future administration taking another military action against Iran. I don’t buy that no other administration would have done what Trump’s doing right now (I think Haley and DeSantis both would have). And now that it has been done, with much weaker retaliation than most people would have probably guessed, I think there’ll be less of a stigma with doing it again (if needed).

Two former FBI employees are suing the FBI, DOJ, Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel over being fired simply because they were previously assigned to investigate things that Donald Trump didn’t want investigated. Do you think their case stands a chance? — Alex D.

I don’t know, Alex, mainly because I’m not sure what legal protections such people have. I’m interested to see where this case goes, because what you’re correctly describing has happened to A LOT of people over the last 14 months. Think about the insanity of it: You’re an impressive individual who was hired and trained by the FBI, but was later fired (and had your career derailed) — not for incompetence — but because you were assigned to investigate January 6, efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Trump’s illegal handling of classified documents, or some other case that upset Donald Trump. This has been happening not just to FBI officers, but also DOJ employees and Secret Service agents. Meanwhile, new potential hires for these agencies are being asked whether they believe the 2020 election was stolen, as some kind of litmus test. It’s gross and glaringly unethical, and it’s weeding out competency and character in our federal government. But whether it’s illegal, I guess we’ll find out.

Mr. Daly, I was interested in your RINO answer. I avoid cable news and only subscribe to one other .com and one internet daily newsletter. I would be interested to know what your and Mr. Goldberg's top 5 news sources are. — Michael P.

The Dispatch is my go-to source for news, Michael, but I think National Review is still pretty good too (Audrey Fahlberg has been doing some great reporting there). I also think there’s value in checking out what legacy publications are putting out, like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Like you, I avoid cable news (it’s mostly garbage these days).

With Noem and Kent now gone, who do you think will be the next high ranking cabinet official to be axed or quit? — Ben G.

My guess would be Tulsi Gabbard, which would be a great thing for our country.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

“Going on these comedy shows gives a politician an opportunity to portray himself or herself in a different light.”

You may have forgotten this, but back when Donald Trump first entered the 2016 presidential race (which began in 2015), the liberal media — including the entertainment media — loved him (even after he did things like call Mexicans “rapists,” mock a reporter’s physical disability, and knock John McCain for his wartime capture).

Well, it wasn’t so much him they loved, but rather a couple things about him:

1. He and his antics were great for ratings.

2. The Left was enjoying the chaos he was bringing to the GOP nomination process, and believed that, if he won the Republican primary, he would be an easy defeat for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

So, in November of 2015, Trump was asked to host Saturday Night Live. In the run-up to the episode, Bill O’Reilly had me on the O’Reilly Factor to talk about whether or not it was a smart political move for Trump.

Read more

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at a call for supporting President Trump’s efforts in Iran… from an unlikely ally.

Share

Read more

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

So far, it looks like the execution of the military action in Iran is going well — despite Iran’s attacks on its Arab neighbors, hoping they’ll grow weary and stop supporting the United States.

Iran isn’t totally defenseless yet, but the United States has imposed heavy damage to its Navy and Air Force and is bombing other military sites on a regular basis — including targets on Kharg Island, Iran’s crucial hub where it processes and exports 90 percent of its oil.

But when it comes to war, the best laid plans of presidents and generals have a way of careening off the rails. Let’s hope that’s not the case this time around. But the undeniable fact is that nobody knows how this adventure will end.

Still, that hasn’t stopped Democrats from predicting that it will all end very badly.

“It’s almost certain that Trump’s war against Iran will turn into a disaster,” says Chris Murphy (D-CT). You get the impression most Democrats feel the same way.

But Democrats now have to face their own potential disaster. They’ve already declared the war a mistake and a failure along with a disaster. But what if the war ends well for the United States? What then?

Read more

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Good, concise analysis. I am curious about your business relationship with each other, and also, John, which part of Colorado are you from. — Bob H.

Thanks Bob. Contrary to that of Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski, my business relationship with Bernie is strictly professional. Lol.

Seriously though, in simplified terms, Bernie owns this site/membership, and I manage and promote it. Both of us, of course, contribute our own individual commentary. I also edit the podcasts.

As for where I’m at, I live in Greeley, Colorado. It’s a little over an hour north of Denver. I grew up in Lakewood, a western suburb of Denver.

John, I admire your optimism about the future of Iran, and once again, I am not shedding any tears for the mullahs or other leaders in Iran that have met their 72 virgins. However, if you look at our track record in the Middle East vis a vis regime chance: Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan - we are basically 0-4. Our military is the best in the world, and can defeat any other military in the world in conventional combat situations, but "regime change" takes more than that. I just think it's overly naive to think this war won't drag on, in some form for at least 10 years. This looks like Iraq 2.0 to me. — John M.

I totally understand your concerns, John, and it’s entirely possible this will indeed drag on for some time. It’s easy to look at the overthrowing of past regimes in the Middle East, using the metric of whether it resulted in a Jeffersonian democracy (or even something well short of that), and see failure. But I don’t quite view it that way.

I had pretty complex thoughts on Afghanistan, prior to the enactment of the foolish Biden/Trump doctrine (people can read those thoughts here). I didn’t consider Afghanistan a loss before then, but rather more of a cold war. Biden forced an unnecessary loss, and the collapse of Afghanistan, based on the political sentiments from an earlier era. It was a terrible mistake.

And I still don’t consider Iraq a loss. It’s worth remembering that we actually toppled the regime pretty quickly, but Iran and other insurgents poured in over time and created a much deeper conflict. It took years, and blood and treasure, but I would argue that we actually won that war. Unfortunately, Obama pulled us out too early after the successful Bush-era surge, which drew in ISIS, and put us in the position of having to go back in and fight some more to clean it up. But all these years later, Iraq is in a far better place than it was and would have been. Still, what most people hold onto is the pain it took to get us there (which is understandable). Because of that, lots of folks reflexively believe every U.S. foreign invention will be like Iraq, despite differences in ruling regimes, history, culture, and regional conflicts — not to mention U.S. military objectives and capabilities.

Iran, in 2026, is different (so is the region for that matter). Since the Iraq War, many other countries in the Middle East have become far less hostile to (and even cooperative with) both the U.S. and Israel, in large part because they’ve come to recognize Iran as a common threat (a threat that has been significantly weakened, with their mostly behind-the-scenes help, over the past few years). The people of Iran are demonstrably emboldened to revolt, in a way the generationally-oppressed Iraqis were not. This less than two-week-old war in Iran has already led to Lebanon calling for direct talks with Israel on “permanent arrangements for security and stability on our borders,” while calling out the betrayal of Hezbollah. I think we can see many other positive alliances built from this, while what’s left of the Iranian regime becomes further isolated and diminished.

Are there lots of challenges and the potential for things to go wrong? Yes. Do I have faith in President Trump to see this situation through properly? No. But I think this is a historic, perhaps once-in-a-generation opportunity for a new day in the Middle East, and I hope it’s successful.

I’ve been wondering for awhile now which is better: parties selecting their candidate in backroom deals Like the old days; or the public primary system which, as you say, very few people participate in which leaves the party radicals left to pick the candidate. Your thought? — Rick H.

Good question, Rick. Party-primary reform is something I’ve thought a lot about over the last decade, as our two major parties have only grown weaker and weaker. It’s worth remembering what the purpose of a political party is supposed to be: a vehicle for defining social ambitions, translating them into policy positions, building public support for those positions, and ultimately advancing them through elections and public policy. But that’s not how the parties function these days, in no small part because those “smoke-filled rooms” no longer exist. The decision has instead been largely democratized, which, as you and I stated, gives more weight to highly-engaged radicals. And when a nominee is selected these days (often by a plurality rather than a majority), the car keys are basically just handed over to the winner, who’s often the loudest, most obnoxious person in the room. The party then climbs into the backseat, buckles up, and hopes they won’t be driven off a cliff.

This practice of falling in line behind an individual, whose ambitions and policy positions (if they even have any serious or identifiable ones) may not line up at all with the party platform, defeats the main purpose of that party. Some may remember that Trump (a lifelong Democrat until he decided to run for president) made the GOP drop their platform entirely at one point (they later rewrote it to essentially pledge deference to Trump). Others may recall that Bernie Sanders came closer to defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary than anyone could have guessed (and he only switches his party affiliation from “Independent” to “Democrat” when he decides to run for president).

Think about that for a second: In 2016, Republicans nominated a lifelong Democrat, and Democrats came close to nominating an Independent, neither of whose views lined up with their respective party platforms. That’s how weak the parties had become, and they’re much weaker now.

So, do I think the “backroom deals” days were better for the parties, and resulted in stronger, more capable nominees than those selected through publicly democratized primaries? Yeah, I suppose I do. That said, I don’t see those days ever coming back (at least outside of emergency situations). The best someone like me could plausibly hope for are ranked-choice primaries, and increased primary turn-out.

John: I want to explore the term RINO, which I hate. Stands for Republican In Name Only and was most recently applied to Dan Crenshaw, who fell out of favor with the MAGA crowd and lost his primary race in Texas. I actually think most of the modern Republican party are RINO's, having forsaken many of the principles of conservatism - rule of law, personal responsibility, and especially fiscal conservatism. Has RINO just become a pejorative term among our Republican crowd for RIDL (Republicans I Don't Like)? — Steve R.

I’ve never liked the “RINO” stuff. It’s always struck me as stupid. Regardless, its meaning — as you elude to — has changed dramatically since the pre-Trump era. Back then, it was used to criticize Republicans who were deemed insufficiently conservative. Under that definition, Trump would be the ultimate RINO. Today, however, “RINO” is used to trash Republicans who aren’t 100% servile to Donald Trump. Heck, it’s even used to trash me, and I’ve been politically unaffiliated for a decade (you can’t be a RINO if you’re not even a Republican). I can’t take anyone seriously who throws the term “RINO” around in earnest these days.

Sir John — Jesse Jackson Jr. did the classy thing by inviting people of all political persuasions to his father’s funeral. As I recall, he did request that nobody bring politics into the funeral. Of course that did not stop Obama, Biden AND Harris from doing so. Your thoughts? —“Friday The 13th Part 2026—Dems Dishonor The Dead” regards from The Emperor

I’m of the strong belief that if the family of someone who’s passed away asks that funeral attendees refrain from engaging politics, those people should absolutely refrain from engaging in politics. It’s really a no-brainer. And yes, it’s disrespectful to disregard such a request.

A while back, there were a number of crazy commenters on this website who regularly accused you and Bernie of holding all kinds of positions and beliefs that you very clearly did not hold. In fact they were often the exact opposite beliefs that you guys have regularly stated in your writing and podcasts. What happened to them? Did they finally get tired of making stuff up? And why were they doing it in the first place? (Not that I miss them). — Alex D.

I think most of them just left, Alex… though I know a few are still subscribers. The whole phenomenon (which I see on lots of other websites as well) really is bizarre. It basically comes down to our criticism of Donald Trump, and some points I made in a column back in January.

If someone spends endless hours digesting popular right-wing commentary (whether it’s Fox News, Newsmax, high-ranking podcasts, etc.), they come to this website with all kinds of preconditions and “conventional wisdom” that doesn’t line up with our commentary. That’s because we’re not here to confirm people’s political biases, like the big outlets are. We’re just a couple of conservative guys sharing what we actually believe, based on facts, with intellectual consistency. But because we’re often at odds with the popular right-wing outlets, a certain type of person essentially disregards what we say, and instead assigns us the positions and ideology of their perceived political enemies: liberals. Again, this comes from what they’re preconditioned to believe — not what we actually say or write.

Below is a great example. Someone cancelled their subscription the other day, and included this note explaining why:

I've long admired you Bernie, because you were the first to correctly point out how dangerous the so-called mainstream media had become - "they aren't just biased, they are corrupt."But I'm afraid you have really lost your way. I too am a proud Reaganite. But any Reaganite that can actually endorse voting for the communist left is a good thing today has clearly lost his marbles. This idiocy of voting for the left because you don't like Trump is going to ruin this country. I can't believe you endorse this moronic point of view. Bye.

A question for those of you who just read that: When did Bernie ever “endorse voting for the communist left”? When did he endorse voting for any Democrat? Bernie doesn’t even vote for Democrats himself! He has stated, time after time, that the last Democrat he voted for was Jimmy Carter… in the 1980s!

And yet, this guy was so offended, by something he totally fabricated in his own mind (derived only from Bernie’s criticisms of Donald Trump), that he cancelled his subscription. If that’s not Trump Derangement Syndrome, I don’t know what is. But that’s the kind of stuff we unfortunately have to contend with in today’s hyper-tribal political environment.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.