Unethical Quote Of The Month: CNN’s Don Lemon

“You know what we’re going to have to do?… You’re going to have to get rid of the electoral college….And if Joe Biden wins, Democrats can stack the courts and they can do that amendment and get it passed.”

—Don Lemon, juvenile CNN host, in another one of his increasingly frequent whiny rants, this one about how unfair the  Electoral College is.

Because Lemon was talking to the dumbest broadcast journalist on television,  Chris Cuomo, and because if Lemon’s colleague realized how ignorant this statement was—never a sure thing when Cuomo is involved—he might have decided that it was better to mislead CNN’s viewers than to point out that Lemon doesn’t know the U.S. Constitution from an anchovy, nobody corrected this howler.

Lemon apparently thinks the Supreme Court “passes” amendments, or something. He clearly doesn’t understand how amendments actually get passed, and why this particular amendment will never, never be passed. Since he doesn’t know what he is talking about, it is incompetent, irresponsible and unprofessional for him to talk about it. Journalists are supposed to enlighten, not make the public more misinformed than it already is, a condition that poses a danger to democracy without being made any worse.

It is also incompetent, irresponsible, nonprofessional, reckless and a breach of duty for CNN to allow someone who couldn’t pass junior high civics to pretend to be able to analyze the nation’s political scene.

Lemon has been immune from accountability because he is black and gay. The fact that he’s biased, arrogant, hysterical and too ignorant to drive a cab much less to hold forth on national politics should matter more to CNN than his membership in a couple of in-groups.

Apparently, however, it doesn’t.

17 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: CNN’s Don Lemon

    • But he didn’t. A correction would have necessarily included, “Don, SCOTUS has nothing to do with the amendment process.” All he did was mention the states and Congress…he did not correct Lemon’s misinformation. And of course, there is no way 2/3 of Congress and the states will approve one.

        • I think the process can begin in either the States OR the Congress…but it can only end with the States.

          I think it is this:

          A vote of 2/3rds of Congress (not sure if it is Congress assembled or has to be 2/3rds in each house of Congress) can convene the States to consider a proposed Amendment OR, 2/3rd of the States can appeal to Congress to convene a convention of the States to consider a proposed Amendment.

          But, passing the Amendment is entirely up to the convention of the states (their legislatures for all practical purposes) and requires a 3/4ths majority of States (38/50) to pass.

      • I am loathe to defend Lemon because he is a moron, but I read Lemon as saying that, by winning in November (both the Executive and Legislative branches) Democrats would control all branches of government after stacking the courts with judges who would not undo Democrat actions obliterating the Electoral College by forcing a Constitutional amendment through Congress and leaning on the states to approve it. I don’t think he is saying that courts approve the amendment.

        • He is saying that the Court would have a part in it, and would that SCOTUS have to be packed to prevent such an amandement from being over-turned, or something. Courts cannot “undo” any part of the amendment process.It is completely unreviewable. Yet he implaied that SCOTUS was the most important hurdle in the process, and it isn’t even a hurdle. The biggest hurdle is getting 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment, and that takes years at best. This one, which would essentially make California able to pick the President, would provoke massive opposition.

          • I guess they could pack the court and get the Supreme Court to rule that the electoral college is unconstitutional. If you want to just be cynical and partisan, you could do it. Just like you can impeach a President for trying to make foreign policy or trying to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

          • I think your interpretation is probably correct but I was trying to give an avowed idiot the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, I’ll not do that again. Perhaps anything nasty heaped on Don Lemon is worth its weight in gold. I do loathe him. My wife can’t stand him, either. We were flipping through the channels the other night and we alighted on Don’s show. My wife became so angry she through her glass at the TV. Direct hit. We have to buy a new TV now.

            jvb

  1. Of course you can. Your value is determined by your color, your gender, and which gender you are attracted to. That’s one of the values that Democrats subscribe to but will never admit to, because, when you write it out, it looks pretty bad. I know I just did another list of values that are actually very ugly values, but I think a list of democratic true values might illustrate a few things.

    All Democrats, to some degree or another, subscribe to some or all of the following values:

    1. Authority comes from government, and governmental authority is absolute as long as the party is in power. Once the party is no longer in power, The authority is no longer so absolute, however, once the party is back in power, that authority becomes absolute again.

    2. White, straight men are bullies, cowards, sociopaths, and rapists in waiting. None of them should be trusted, except for a woman’s hand picked partner. Once a woman hand picks her partner, he is obligated to obey her in all things. His role is to bring home the bacon, and give the woman in his life whatever she wants.

    3. People’s value is determined by their value to the party, and that value shifts day to day depending on the needs of the party. People’s value is also determined by their color, their gender, or the gender they are attracted to, with white straight males being disfavored.

    4. Single exception: a powerful man is entitled to any woman he wants, as long as he uses his power in the service of the party and is in favor of abortion.

    5. Those who are successful, are successful either because they are lucky, because they are privileged, or both. They owe something to those who were not as lucky or privileged, and it is government’s role to collect that debt.

    6. Business is tolerated because it is necessary, however, it is business’ role to finance the government and the party in exchange for being allowed to operate. Big business can be partnered with as long as it will stick to the party line. Small business is disfavored, since it enables its owners to be free of the need for government.

    7. A population that can defend itself can also revolt. It is better that weapons be confined to the possession of police and the military, and then only when on duty.

    8. Religion is superstitious nonsense, although it may be necessary to pay lip service to it. Black churches and mosques are favored, however, as long as they support the party.

    9. Politicians can do whatever they damn well please, as long as they vote the right way on a portion. If they do not, then one mistake and they are out.

    10. There should be only two freedoms: the freedom to get an abortion, and the freedom to ask permission to do anything else.

    11. certain thoughts are dangerous if they are expressed. It is government’s role to enforce civility and correct thinking among the populist..

    12. Climate change is a very real and imminent danger, and anything that will stave off this danger must be done without question.

    13. The law is fluid until it reaches the point that the party wants it to be at, at that point it becomes immutably settled.

    14. Guilt is a powerful tool for controlling people. White people especially have a huge amount of guilt. There is nothing that white people do that cannot be somehow found to be racist, and there is nothing non-white people do that cannot be excused.

    16. Police and policing are useful in the service of the party, however, if they are no longer useful to the party, they may be discarded or defunded at will.

    17. Mobs are useful in the service of the party, to destroy public art and send the message that its supporters could be next, to intimidate the opposition, to destroy a small business and clear the way for government partnered big business to come in, and other purposes. However, once mobs are no longer in the service of the party, they are a public danger and must be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

    18. It is better to have a failing City run by the party, than a prosperous one not run by the party.

    19. It is the role of the food and energy producing areas of this country to produce the food and energy, do the paperwork, pay their taxes, and shut up. The coasts and the big cities have governing covered.

    20. Taxes are best used for whatever advances the party’s cause.

    21. It is the role of the news media to make certain that the party’s actions receive favorable coverage, and that other actions are either buried or receive bad press.

    22. it is the role of the entertainment industry to reinforce the party’s values and make other values look foolish.

    23. It is the role of the courts to ultimately act as an unelected Politburo when the party’s control over the legislative and executive branches is not enough to make certain that its values are upheld.

    I am sure I could think of more, but that will do for now. Just remember, if you vote for the Democratic party, these are the values you’re voting for, whether you know it or not.

    • “Of course you can. Your value is determined by your color, your gender, and which gender you are attracted to. That’s one of the values that Democrats subscribe to but will never admit to, because, when you write it out, it looks pretty bad. I know I just did another list of values that are actually very ugly values, but I think a list of democratic true values might illustrate a few things.”

      I am interested in this statement, and this sort of statement. My suggestion is that it needs to be examined and analyzed but from an uncommon perspective. I start from the premise that in our day, in our present, certain thoughts are *impossible* to think. The mind cannot form them because of the coercive power of guilt. But, since I believe it is crucial to disassemble and dismantle this entire mass of coercive thought, and that the only way to do this is through *intellectual work*, one has to examine all of those *incontestable assertions* that we live with, and live in relation to.

      Steve makes what I would call a *huge* complaint about this thing that *the democrats* do. His complaint is basically that of *reverse-racism* if I understand him correctly. What I notice is that this is essentially Jack’s position as well. In fact the contributors to this blog, universally with the possible exception of one or two, hold to this view. But it is this — this entire complex, this knot — that needs to be examined. It is not easy but it must be done.

      The first step and the first order of business must occur in challenging, and defeating with sound reasoning, the assertion that it is wrong and bad and *evil* to favor oneself as a white person, in a white culture, in an Occidental culture that is white. One reason this is hard is because the word (and what the word represents) is not adequate as a descriptive but is one of those convenient terms that is easy to use. Yet the use becomes a trap. When *our enemies* use the term ‘whiteness’ and when they say that they are in deadly struggle with it, what do they mean? I suggest that if you can begin to see what it is they hate, and what they have set themselves to destroy, you might begin to understand what it is that *you* must resolve to protect and defend.

      But *you* cannot even arrive at that point because you are fully under the power of the guilt that they have employed against *you* for generations. In short, you have no pride. You cannot define a *pride* that would allow you to defend yourself. So, you operate completely within the constraints that *they*, your enemies, manage.

      So let me do this work for you, let me show you that it can be done and then how it can be done. But in doing that I will need not to attack *them* (those people over there that you always want to refer to as the source of your problems) but you yourself. It is you that must be examined. It is in you where the failure is found. It is not *they* that are the source of your problems, but you yourself.

      You have allowed *all of this* to happen. And to reverse *all of this* will require you to submit yourself to an internal revolution. If you do not do this, you will be destroyed. You are now being destroyed. Or to put it more accurately you are witnessing all the events and all the sings that are leading to your destruction. And yet you freeze! You can take no action! You are weak and you are cowards. You want to describe this in a different way. You want to believe, No! I am strong and “moral” to hold to the positions that my enemies define! I am a fine, upstanding man or woman!

      But the truth is that you have sold yourself out. But it is more accurate to say that you participate in a Sell-Out which, obviously, you did not generate yourself and personally, but which has you in its grip. That is to say that like all of us you *flow with this current*. But the truth is that because you cannot resist the current, because you will not do the inner work needed to resist it, you essentially participate in it and you are complicit.

      And this — what I say here — is an intolerable realization for you! Because it means that to correct this series of problems you will have to confront cowardice. Yet *you* know this and so instead of rising to the occasion you resolve, even if you have not thought it through in precise terms, to remain inert.

      Your color, your gender, and the gender you are attracted to.

      You see, right here is the *area* where you need to do your work. You will need to define, in truthful terms, what ‘color’ means here. I know what it means. You do not know what it means. You will need to get clear about ‘gender’ as well. What this means is also beyond you because *you* have internalized the discourse of our enemies. You are essentially American feminists. Just saying this causes you to shrink back in horror. “What is she saying?!?” And the final point and the final issue is that you cannot define heterosexuality as a necessary norm. And you CERTAINLY cannot define homosexuality as something even questionable.

      Without wishing to offend, without having set out to offend, I have become aware that these three items are the principle zones or areas in which (as I say with a certain polemic force!) your essential failure occurs. These are also Jack’s principle areas or perhaps I can say ‘pillars’ that uphold the *sky* or the overarching structure of American Progressive belief. Not *conservative* but *progressive*.

      So, the counter-assertion is really quite simple at this point. You will have to recover your sense of determining power as a white man.

      You will have to recover your sense of determining power as a man, as a male, in distinction to the woman and to the female, and this in the true Christian sense of the word. A man capable of leadership and rulership. Not as a simpering wimp whose center or power his enemies control!

      And the final area is the entire issue and question of homosexuality and the ‘invasion’ and ‘assault’ on — to use their term — heteronormativity.

      The enemies that wilt before the task are not *over there* but right here among you. And in you.

    • You’re right, Steve. With the Dems and the American left, it’s the Fidel Cadto model. Single party rule. Everyone owes fealty to the party because the party, in its goodness, controls everyone and everything.

  2. Jack wrote:

    He clearly doesn’t understand how amendments actually get passed, and why this particular amendment will never, never be passed.

    Agreed. Actually, I doubt if he knows or cares how many hoops amendments have to jump through to become part of the Constitution. If he did, he wouldn’t have been so cavalier about his comment.

    It is also incompetent, irresponsible, nonprofessional, reckless and a breach of duty for CNN to allow someone who couldn’t pass junior high civics to pretend to be able to analyze the nation’s political scene.

    Heh. You could make that charge at virtually every TV or cable news outlet in America, and 98% of its newspapers. Which tells you that most of the public, who snoozed through civics and government classes in high school, don’t know anything about how the Constitution is amended, or if they did, have been convinced of some alternate reality. This lazy, feckless disinterest is the root cause of many of our current problems.

    Lemon has been immune from accountability because he is black and gay.

    Very nearly the trifecta.

    These days, news outlets don’t care about the facts unless they fit their “narrative,” they don’t care about their personalities unless they fail to draw an audience, and they don’t care about the damage they do to the republic. In service of their ideological bent and their target audience, nothing is off limits anymore, and they use President Trump as justification via rationalizations 1, 13, 14 (where all “marginalized” people like Lemon are automatically good), 17, 25, 28, 30, 31, 46, 49, 52, 53, 57, 58, and 67 among others.

    Nothing can be done about this. Mass media has become an addiction, and the polarization of the country makes it easier to appeal to only part of the country and still make money. The various media groups have embraced this idea and simply written off the rest, much like Mitt Romney’s infamous “47%” comment. This approach has hastened the Balkanization of our country and enhanced the violence that now manifests itself upon us all.

    Here in the Louisville suburbs, where I reside, we watch in resigned fear and horror as the rising violence threatens to spread and engulf the rest of the city in the conflagration of racial and political hate. There were many shots fired downtown last night, and two officers injured by gunfire. There may be no more injuries, but the fact that shootings are becoming a multiple-per-day occurrence in a city where they were once fairly rare is not lost on those of us somewhat removed from the epicenter of the naked rioting.

    I think we all hope it will get better, but deep inside, we know it’s going to get worse. Hopefully, “worse” does not mean “worse and worse.”

  3. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t FDR try, unsuccessfully, to add 2 more SCOTUS Justices to the Constitutionally defined 9?

    • 2? He wanted 6! The plan went over like a lead balloon with the public, but it suddenly seemed that Justice Owen Roberts “saw the light” and started voting to uphold FDR’s policies. They called it “the switch in time that saved nine.” Of course FDR overstayed 2 terms and ultimately got to fill the Court with his own people anyway. The number of justices is set by statute, not by the Constitution, so it would be possible to change it with a strong enough legislative backing, especially if they get rid of the filibuster for legislation.

      Between talk of bringing in 2 new states with guaranteed Democratic senators, doing away with the filibuster, and packing the courts, we are looking at a HUGE potential power grab by one party.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.