Discover more from Bernard Goldberg's Commentary
Bernie’s Q&A: Tim Scott, LeBron James, Breonna Taylor, Jerry Falwell Jr., and more! (8/28) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)
Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.
Editor's note: If you enjoy these sessions (along with the weekly columns and audio commentaries), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you!
Now, let’s get to your questions (and my answers):
I was giving further thought to your excellent Monday post regarding American pride. Other then the John Carlos/Tommie Smith protest, by and large throughout the years American athletes (black and white) have always mentioned when interviewed how much pride they took in representing their country. Are those days gone forever ? If so, will the Olympics lose their luster as far as American viewers are concerned? Needless to say, each time an American athlete wins gold in the future we will be holding our collective breath ( at those that still choose to actually watch the games). I am sure you can weigh in on the other obvious questions that all this raises so I will await your insights. -- Michael F.
I'm not sure those days are gone forever, Michael -- because forever is a very long time. But I think we may see well-planned protests of one kind or another -- even at the Olympics. And I think it will offend many Americans who will tune out. But there's always a chance -- a slim one, I think -- that the people who set rules for American athletes in the Olympics will set down some rules to prohibit certain demonstrations, like kneeling during our national anthem. One more thing: Who knows when we'll have the next Olympics? Not anytime soon, unfortunately.
Last week you said President Trump was Bill O'Reilly's friend. In his book, "The United States of Trump," O'Reilly downplays this. He said something to the effect that even though he's attended some Yankee baseball games with Trump, they're not really friends. He went on to say something to the effect that President Trump has few friends, that he's a private person. Do you buy this? (Once on his show, he revealed that he bought a milkshake for Trump, presumably when they were at Yankee games or some such sports event.) And no, I didn't buy his book or any of the ones that were presumably researched and mainly written by his co-author. I read it while at Barnes & Noble. lol. You might feel indebted to O'Reilly, so I'll understand if you don't want to answer the question. But please, no pulled punches. -- Bob H.
If I went to ballgames with somebody ... if I sat there and chatted with him ... and if it happened more than once or twice ... there's a good chance I'd consider that somebody my friend. But Bill is probably right about Trump having few friends. Trump liked Bill when Bill was saying the "right" things about him. But Trump would dump Bill in a New York minute if Bill ever said the things about Trump that I have. So I understand what Bill was getting at: He realizes that they weren't friends in any normal sense ... because that's not how Trump operates.
Breanna Turner's name is bantied about a lot by the Left as another example of police executing blacks. If you didn't know the full story, and you never will if you get your info from the MSM, Turner was shot to death by cops as she lay in her bed. End of story, according to the usual suspects (including Lebron James). Here's what went down: she was living with her boyfriend in what was a known drug house, which had been raided many times by police. Because the drugs could be flushed down the toilet before the cops could gain entry, they applied for and got a judge to issue a "no knock warrant." So in this case, the drug dealer gets caught with his pants down [literally] and began shooting at the cops, hitting one. Turner was killed when cops returned fire. Tragic, but definitely not execution by cop. -- John M.
First, her name is Breonna Taylor ... and second the story is more complicated than your version of it. A lot more complicated! Here's a story from the NY Times ... and before you dismiss it because it's the NY Times, please read it, John. You may come away with a different view of what happened that night.
Tim Scott is a rising star. What a beautiful heartfelt speech on Monday night. Unfortunately many on the left then attacked him and used the Uncle Tom epithet. Wonder how many white progressives used the term and would have the guts to do so to the Senator's face. It also struck me that calling Senator Scott an Uncle Tom is akin to someone else maybe telling him, "hey man you ain't black." -- Michael
The Left can't tolerate a black conservative. Such a person makes no sense to them. So they hurl names, like Uncle Tom. Tim Scott is an honorable man. His critics -- the name-calling ones -- are not.
I was wondering if you have read any of Jason Whitlock's columns. Jason recently wrote an article on LeBron James and how he thinks LeBron is a fraud. I think Jason is 100% right, LeBron seems to be showcasing his liberalism and wokeness to the world but his statements clearly indicate that he is pretty shallow on the issues. Take for example LeBron's silence on China's human rights violations, how he compares himself to Emmett Till, and his unusual anti-police stances which make no sense when you consider the fact that he is often surrounded and protected by police. I think Jason should be applauded for calling out one of the most powerful people in sports and I think LeBron is putting on an act to prop up his brand, not better those he claims to support. What say you? -- Joe M.
I say two things, Joe: First, I'm a big fan of Jason Whitlock. Second, I'm oh so very tired of hearing LeBron preach to us. I may have missed it, but I haven't heard him deplore the daily mayhem in places like Chicago. I haven't heard him about the children killed in crossfires or simply because they were play outside their house. I haven't heard him speak out against fatherlessness, which does more harm to black kids than the police. He has every right to protest bad cops. But he'd have more credibility, with me anyway, if he spoke out about the ongoing problem in black communities that the cops are not responsible for.
Your “Off The Cuff” this week was alarming and yet all too concerning. This could be a proverbial No-win period for us (USA). I think we all realize this is a decision between the lesser of two imperfect choices. This is all very tiring, mostly because of the lopsidedness of what we hear and see in the news. There’s little sensible middle ground where people stand up for what is just the right thing to do. So based on your message today, what does the media have to do, or should be responsible enough to do if anything, to keep the peace on November 4th and the days and weeks following, regardless of who wins? -- ScottyG
They should report the facts and keep their opinions to themselves. But they'll weigh in on whatever side their Democratic allies are on. By "they" I'm referring to the big name liberal news outlets -- CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, etc. So I stand by what I said in my Off the Cuff: November 4 is going to be ugly.
I've often wondered if the book publishing business for books penned by politicians and other public figures is a front for illicit funding of the politician by angel donors looking to advance the politician's career and curry future favors. Example: a very junior U.S. Senator penned two books after a successful speech at the DNC several years ago. I can see a scenario where the political powers that be, approach their favorite publisher with a proposal that goes something like this – “We have a young rising star in our party that is going places. He has written a wonderful book about his vision for the future that we think you should publish. We can assure you that this book will sell right off the shelf during the first weeks on sale, 500,000 copies.”
How could anyone promise such a lofty initial sale? Donors and lobbyists, among others, would be the targeted group. Anyone with lots of money that wants political influence without the restrictions of campaign donations. How would this work? Donor A buys 5,000 copies at $35 (assumed) which costs the donor $175,000 (chump change for the rich and powerful). In turn, he donates the books to his favorite charity such as local libraries or legitimate charities to raffle off. The donor now has enriched his political protégé by $25,000 and has a $175,000 tax right-off and everything is off the books as far as political contributions are concerned. Ten donors at 5,000 copies each and it becomes pretty easy to ensure 500,000 copies are sold. Am I inventing a conspiracy or does this practice go on all the time? It is hard for me to believe that so many people are buying up all these books written by politicians when our electorate is so consumed with things more easily digested like Facebook, Twitter and the inane broadcast news. -- Douglas C.
There are what they call in the business, "bulk sales" which mean what the name suggests. Not someone walking into the store, or going on Amazon, and buying one book. So what you say is possible. But if that happened -- if the DNC bought 500 books or more at one time -- the trade publications would pick it up and so would the NY Times -- if they wanted to. If the RNC did that, they definitely would report it.
Janari Ricks, Secoria Turner, and Cannon Hinant were children senselessly murdered by black thugs. The first two children are black and the third is white. I won’t ask why the anarchists aren’t rioting on behalf of these victims because I can reasonably assume the answer to that. Nor do I need to speculate on why the lamestream media largely ignored these dreadful stories. However I am curious about your opinion as a news reporter. You wrote that there is no secret cabal of news reporters and editors sitting in a dark room secretly discussing how they can slant the news to push the liberal agenda and make conservatives look bad (although I think you may be reconsidering that notion). Nonetheless I ask—when news stories emerge which blatantly destroy the liberal narrative that the media likes to push, just how DO they behave behind closed doors? Does Don Lemon think “Oh I’ll just ignore this”? Do the people at CNN, the New York Times and MSNBC meet in a room and say “How are we gonna report this?” Do they say “Let’s bury the story on page 58 and leave out the pertinent details, even though we know if the races were reversed, we would make sure everyone in America knew their names and that the suspects are white?" Seriously, they must know that the general public sees through their narratives. How do you think they talk about these stories before reporting them? -- “Ignoring The Elephant In The Room” Regards, From The Emperor
Welcome back, Your Royal Highess. You nailed by original position on how the bias comes out: No closed door sessions to concoct ways to get conservatives; no conspiracies; bias simply is the result of groupthink, too many like-minded journalists in the newsroom. That WAS my position.
Now, I do believe they get together, at places like CNN, and decide what will help their political team and what won't. So they play down black on black crime because it doesn't fit the acceptable narrative of white cops killing black people. They play it down because it might give bigots ammunition to use against black people. But I'm not sure the general public sees through this. CNN viewers like what they're getting on CNN. Same with MSNBC and Fox. So there's not likely going to be a backlash against the biased reporting. I'm not sure they talk about any of this in advance. Everyone knows by now what's expected of them.
I've been following the Jerry Falwell Jr. story a bit, and though it's pretty confusing, here are some things that stick out to me:
Falwell and his wife somehow got involved with a hotel pool boy, who they brought into a long-term business partnership that included the pool boy having sex with Falwell's wife as Falwell watched on.
At some point, sexually incriminating photos were taken of Falwell's wife (possibly with the pool boy), and there was some serious concern by the Falwells that the photos would go public (perhaps an extortion attempt by the pool boy).
Donald Trump's attorney at the time, Michael Cohen, was brought into the situation (I assume by the Falwells) to assist in keeping the photos from going public.
The following year, during the 2016 Republican primary, everyone expected Falwell to endorse Ted Cruz because of their Christian ties and a close personal relationship between the two (Falwell had even pledged that endorsement to Cruz and his pastor father). However, Falwell instead (suddenly and unexpectedly) became one of the first evangelical leaders to endorse the morally bankrupt Donald Trump (at a time when Trump had very little cred with Christian conservatives, and was in desperate need of some).
I'm not a conspiracy person, but it seems to me that the Cohen link, and what he knew, could explain why Falwell changed his endorsement commitment. Your thoughts? -- Ben G.
You COULD be right, but who knows? I sure don't. Would I be shocked, Ben, if what you suggest actually happened? Nope!
Dear Bernie, Can you please deliver one of your "Off the Cuff" audio commentaries using Kimberly Guilfoyle's speaking style from the Republican National Convention? I think it would be awesome. -- John D.
That's an excellent idea, John. But I'm afraid I'd break my microphone. It can only handle one million decibels -- equivalent to 100 atomic bombs going off at the same time.
Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.