Comment of the Day: “Predictable Aftermath To Assassination Attempt #3 That Still Must Be Aggressively Addressed…Somehow”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

I was hoping that Ethics Alarms history buff and house deep-diver would weigh in on the latest Presidential assassination attempt, and he didn’t disappoint.

Here is Steve-O-in NJ’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Predictable Aftermath To Assassination Attempt #3 That Still Must Be Aggressively Addressed…Somehow”:

* * *

What makes me wonder is that the Secret Service didn’t appear to have run everyone staying in the hotel at the time of the event through whatever databases they had. The would-be assassin didn’t have a criminal record, but recent firearms purchases might have popped, which might have made them look again, see that he hadn’t gone through airport-level security, and made them at least check him out. Be that as it may, there is pretty clear evidence of intent here, between the manifesto, the carefully managed trip, and the hotel stay.

This actually makes four tries for Trump, if you count the one before he was elected the first time where the guy tried to grab a security guard’s gun but got grabbed before he could do much. We still know probably the least about Crooks, the guy who came the closest in Butler, PA, because he was shot and killed at the scene and he didn’t leave a clear paper trail.

I’m aware that few of the presidents were universally popular, and that a lot were divisive and had strong opposition. Andrew Jackson was disliked enough (especially in the Carolinas) that three people tried to kill him, although only one while he was president. Lincoln of course was killed by a Confederate bitter-ender (there were supposedly four other attempts to kill him, including one to kill him as he took the train to his inauguration). Garfield was killed by someone clearly crackers. McKinley was shot dead by an anarchist. Taft, Hoover, FDR, and Truman were all targeted for one reason or another. The two PR independence activists who tried for Truman killed a White House policeman. The anarchist who tried for FDR failed but did get the mayor of Chicago. Then of course there is the murder of JFK, the shooting of Reagan, and failed attempts on the next four presidents. As far as I know, Biden was never targeted.

Most of the presidential assassins and would-be assassins were either insane (Guiteau, Hinckley) or extremists of a lost cause or a cause that never was (Booth, Czolgocz, others). There’s nothing insane about this guy. Either that or most of the Democratic Party has gone over the edge. I don’t think that’s the case, though. A lot of it is just cold hate and arrogance. It’s easy to hate someone in the heat of anger. If you still hate someone when the heat of anger has cooled down, or if you were never all that angry when you decided to hate that person, that’s really a problem.

It’s completely normal to dislike Trump. It’s completely normal to believe that his policies are the wrong ones. It’s completely normal to think he is leading the country in the wrong direction. All of that is at least reasonably debatable and there is room for disagreement. It’s not normal to believe Trump is a pedophile, there is no evidence of that, and in fact there’s more evidence that Biden is (getting too close to young girls, showering with his daughter). It’s not normal to believe Trump is a rapist, there are no findings of any court convicting him of that. It’s not normal to believe Trump is a traitor, because if he could have been charged with treason they had four years to do it in.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: “Michael”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

As you may have heard, the new biopic “Michael” is on the way to becoming a huge box office hit, which Hollywood needs desperately these days. It is also a film that critics have nearly unanimously panned as pure hagiography. Sure, movies about real people routinely gild the human lily, but “Michael” has taken the whitewashing (Is it tasteless to use that term in reference to Jackson? I think it’s rather appropriate…) to absurd levels. The film stops before the 1993 allegations of child sexual abuse against the pop icon, in part because the terms of Jackson’s financial settlement ($20 million while refusing to admit wrongdoing) with an accuser prohibited the estate from publicly questioning the allegations against him. Thus “Michael” is a big wet kiss to the King of Pop and his fans, omitting the dark and creepy stuff, which in Jackson’s case is considerable. I would argue that it is also defining.

Jackson is played by Jaafar Jackson, one of the singer’s nephews, who looks like Michael might have looked if he were, you know, normal. Telling the life story of Michael Jackson while ignoring his disturbing pederastic tendencies is like making a movie about Errol Flynn or John Barrymore that never shows them taking a drink. Or a movie about John Wilkes Booth that leaves out that little Ford’s Theater incident. How about a Bill Clinton biopic that leaves out Monica? Fatty Arbuckle was a silent film genius: why ruin a movie about him by including that downer of a party he gave where a woman was killed and he was tried for murder?

Pages: 1 2

Monday Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 4/27/26

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Most of these notes, as you may well expect, involve the latest Trump assassination attempt.

1. Barack Obama is trying to surpass Donald Trump as the most obnoxious former President ever. At least Trump had the excuse that he was trying to get elected to another term. Obama has no excuses. He wrote on “X”: “Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner, it’s incumbent upon all us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy. It’s also a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice that U.S. Secret Service Agents show every day. I’m grateful to them – and thankful that the agent who was shot is going to be okay.”

Nobody has any doubts about what the motives of the shooter were, and the message he sent out shortly before his attempt to kill the President and as many of his aides and Cabinet as he could made those motives clear. So this is going to be his party’s tactic for ducking responsibility, is it? Gaslighting? (See the shameless Rep. Raskin pretend he has no idea what kind of rhetoric his party has used against President Trump.) Obama’s message is also notable in expressing concern for the Secret Service agent but none for the would-be assassin’s main target. Apparently it was too difficult for Obama to say he was also thankful that Trump, his wife and others were “going to be okay.” That sentiment, after all, would upset the Democratic base that wants Trump dead.

The longer I get to observe Barack Obama, the more indefensible his character seems to be. If Jimmy Carter, as he boasted, was among our most accomplished ex-Presidents ever (well-behind Herbert Hoover, however), Obama has to rank as among the most destructive, right down there with John Tyler, who joined Jefferson Davis’s Confederacy Cabinet.

2. How can this happen? NYPD Officer James Giovansanti’s pickup truck has been caught on camera 547 times in Staten Island since 2022, with 187 camera-issued tickets in 2025 alone. The cop has accumulated $36,650.02 in fines. Apparently Giovansanti is a piker compared to NYC’s reckless driving champion, someone in Brooklyn whose tickets total up to over $60,000, but the Staten Island scofflaw is a law enforcement officer. He should have been terminated years ago. [Pointer: JutGory]

3. The hot topic for the Trump Deranged isn’t that the President was nearly murdered, but that he was mean to Norah O’Donnell on “Sixty Minutes” less than 24 hours later. During a Sunday interview, O’Donnell read to Trump’s face the most direct part of the failed assassin’s so-called “manifesto,” the section I called “the key quote in the message” yesterday: “I am a citizen of the United States of America. What my representatives do reflects on me.I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”

Then:

Pages: 1 2

Unethical Website of the Month: Harvard’s “Anti-Racism Resources for Parents”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Oh. My. God.

KABOOM!

Just look at this thing! It is such a blatant far-Left, “white people are the enemy” piece of intersectionalism, CRT and white-guilt stoking propaganda orgy that I feel nauseous at the prospect of describing it. What is this bigoted, pseudo-scientific, DEI- promoting crap doing on the official Harvard University domain?

Here is how this subversive political propaganda is introduced:

“In the current climate of racial tension and police brutality, it is quite easy to feel overwhelmed by the onslaught of heart-breaking news and information. Yet through the whirlwind of chaos, change in the system is occuring and now more than ever, people are vocal on prevalent issues of racism, encouraging others to join in the fight against systemic racism. However, simply not being a racist is insufficient in eradicating the problem. We must work on actively becoming Anti-Racist in order to properly push back against the system that oppresses Black, Indegenious, People of Color (BIPOC). Members of our community have sought out and compiled resources that can educate, facilitate, and equip those seeking to become more effective anti-racism allies. We hope that these resources will prove helpful in the journey towards a more equal, united America. Thank you for your active engagement. “

Remember, Harvard University is promoting this. 

These are the links one encounters: it’s like an anti-white racism Chamber of Horrors:

Home

For Allies For Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC)

Racial Bias in Scientific Fields

Support for African American Colleagues

For Leaders

Information for Parents

Harvard Library Resources

Then comes the “For Parents Section,” a handy-dandy how-to raise a little white-hating non-white child or a groveling, self-hating white patsy for DEI dominance. Again, just look at this crap:

Pages: 1 2

Predictable Aftermath To Assassination Attempt #3 That Still Must Be Aggressively Addressed…Somehow

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

Above is the guy who was trying to kill the President and as many of his aides and Cabinet members as possible last night. (I don’t care what his name is.) You can read his “manifesto”  here. The news media is calling it “unhinged.” It’s not unhinged. This is an arrogant, well-educated, erudite narcissist who has been indoctrinated by the Axis of Unethical Conduct’s propaganda over ten years to the point where he believed that assassinating the President of the United States is a patriotic act. John Wilkes Booth believed the same thing. He wasn’t unhinged either.

The key quote in the message is: “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” There is no evidence that Trump is a pedophile. There is no evidence that he is a rapist. There is no evidence that he is a traitor, or that he has committed any crimes in office. But the news media and its message-makers within “the resistance” and the Democratic Party have been working hard to convince the weak of mind or narrow of perception that up is down and black is white. Outside the White House Correspondents Dinner, demonstrators carried signs saying “Death to tyrants” and “Death to all of them.” The failed assassin isn’t the wacko outlier that the Trump Deranged want sane people to think he is. He is one of them. He got his news and information from MSNBC and CNN, and believed this…

Last night Richard Grennell tweeted to CNN’s Jake Tapper, “You encourage the mentally unstable to take action against Trump every night.” Grennell is wrong. Tapper and his colleagues encourage normal, functioning Americans to hate and oppose their President every night. Another “X” used wrote, “Most of the people in that Washington Hilton ballroom tonight are morally responsible for what just happened. For over 10 years they’ve pushed the most hateful, vile conspiracies: Trump is a threat to democracy, a dictator, literally Hitler 2.0. They demonized him nonstop, normalized violence in their rhetoric, then acted shocked when the inevitable keeps occurring.” That is correct. So is the Instapundit contributor who wrote that MSNBC is complicit in last night’s attempted murder.

I played Scrabble last night with a smart, passionate, kind neighbor who is a private tutor who does wonderful work for various charities, and who devotes her spare time to helping the poor. She texted me today that she was in “mourning” because President Trump was still alive.

If there aren’t enough sane, principled, informed voters who care sufficiently in November to make sure that the party and the parties responsible for inflicting this hate plague on the nation do not gain control of the government, then American society will have proven that it is no longer worthy of a republic.

Flashback: “Ethics Reflections On The Trump Assassination Attempt Prelude and Aftermath” and Observations on the Latest Attempt

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Fact: The Axis of Unethical Conduct is 100% responsible for the third serious attempt on President Trump’s life in less than two years. 100%. Denying this is spin.

I’m not tolerating it or allowing the Mad Left to duck responsibility. It has been pushing hate for years, mostly focusing on Trump but also on Republicans, conservatives, the United States of America, capitalism and our founding values. Many on the Left (including Senator Elizabeth Warren) cheered on or rationalized the murderous act of the man who murdered a health care insurance executive by shooting him in the back—you know, evil corporations, evil capitalism. Many on the Left cheered the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The “resistance,” Democrats and their propaganda engines, aka. “the news media,” have been calling Trump a dictator, a fascist, Hitler, a sexual predator, a convicted felon, a racist, a monster, an existential threat to democracy, a practitioner of genocide, constantly and repeatedly. A lot of people really believe these labels are justified; a lot more people are cynically and irresponsibly spreading those accusation because they will help the Democrats achieve their ultimate goal of single party rule.

I believe that a very large percentage of American progressives want Trump dead, one way or another. A Rutgers study, you may recall, found more than half of the progressive respondents to a survey said it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Donald Trump. I believe that this conclusion is inescapable.

It’s too bad for these corrupt and despicable Americans that Trump is really good at reacting to assassination attempt. Then again, he’s had more practice than anybody in U.S. history. In his comments to the media last night, the President said in part,

“This was an event dedicated to freedom of speech that was supposed to bring together members of both parties with members of the press. And in a certain way it did…I saw a room that was totally unified. It was in one way very beautiful — a very beautiful thing to see…In light of this evening’s events, I ask that all Americans recommit with their hearts to resolving our differences peacefully. We have to resolve our differences. You had Republicans, Democrats, independents, conservatives, liberals, and progressives in that room — a big crowd, record-setting crowd. There was a tremendous amount of love and coming together.

“We looked at all of the conditions that took place tonight. It’s not a particularly secure building. I didn’t want to say this, but this is why we have to have all of the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House. It’s actually a larger room and it’s much more secure. It’s got drone-proof and bulletproof glass. We need the ballroom.
 
“This is not the first time in the past couple of years that our republic has been attacked by a would-be assassin. In Butler, Pennsylvania, less than two years ago — you all know that story. And in Palm Beach, Florida, a few months after that, we came close again. We had some great work done by law enforcement.
 
…I’ve studied assassinations. The most impactful people, the people that do the most, are the ones they go after. Abraham Lincoln, the big names. I hate to say I’m honored by that, but we’ve done a lot. We’ve changed this country. There are a lot of people that are not happy about that.”

Trump’s assassination history is flawed, but in his case, it has some legitimacy. Abe Lincoln, of course, fits his narrative, but the other assassinated Presidents do not: McKinley, Garfield, and Kennedy. The President Trump just surpassed to become the failed assassination record-holder with three is Gerald Ford, not exactly one of the “big names.” Nevertheless, the resistance, Democrats and the Axis media have been vilifying this President because he has “done a lot.” and has foiled them again and again. Yes, Trump’s trolling, gloating, deliberately inflammatory rhetoric and defiant style make the target they have placed on his back a bit more vivid, but make no mistake: the Trump Deranged and the totalitarian-tilting Left put it there.

Before I get to the EA post I authored right after the 2024 assassination attempt, I want to quote from the later post on the same topic:

Pages: 1 2

Unethical People Making Unethical Arguments Being Treated By An Incompetent Journalist As If They Could Possibly Be Something Other Than Unethical

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Wow. Great job, New York Times!

That’s a gift link to this head-exploding piece: “‘The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?’ ” That states pretty clearly an example of Rationalizations #1, #2, and #2a on the Ethics Alarms Rationalizations List: 1. The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it,” 2Whataboutism, or “They’re Just as Bad“and 2 A. Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming.” These rationalizations aren’t so high on the list by random chance. They are near the top because they are ancient, popular, invalid and obvious rationalizations that have been rotting society for thousands of years. Yet the New York Times thinks its worth pondering whether such anti-ethical reasoning is justified.

I hate to repeat myself, but this exemplifies how today’s Left thinks.

Left-wing “influencer” Hasan Piker and New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino did a video interview with culture editor Nadja Spiegelman on “the ethics of theft.”

[Pssst! There is no “ethics of theft.” Theft is both unethical and immoral, as well as illegal (you know, that Ten Commandments thingy).] This is a podcast that should have lasted,oh, ten seconds or less. Nadja begins with this fatuous intro: “I’m proposing a new term: Microlooting. People are taking small things from big corporations and they’re feeling justified. But is it a slippery slope? What’s going on with our moral code?”

Of course it’s a slippery slope, and if you even have to ask that question, you’re too clueless to moderate the topic!

Then we get quotes like these:

Pages: 1 2

“Insider Prediction Market Betting”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Ah, new and different ways to cheat! Is this a great country, or what?

Kalshi is an online prediction gambling operation where users can bet on everything from how long the government shutdown will last to Oscar winners to what show will top Netflix’s streaming numbers in a given week. Naturally political bets are particularly popular.

And, also naturally, some users will try to cheat by betting on matters they have some control over or insider information about. Last week Kalshi slapped down and fined three political candidates who tried to bet on their own races: Mark Moran, an independent running for U.S. Senate in Virginia, Ezekiel Enriquez, a former Republican congressional candidate in Texas, and Matt Klein, a Democratic Minnesota state senator who is running for Congress.

Kalshi’s head of enforcement and legal counsel said that the sanctions are part of Kalshi’s “proactive engineering solutions” to “identify illicit trading activity.” Kalshi’s rules were recently updated to ban politicians from betting on their own candidacies. I see no difference between a candidate doing this and a baseball player (like the late Pete Rose) betting for or against his own teams. The New York Times fatuously writes, “It’s unclear if they were trading in a manner that was relying on inside information.” What? By definition the bets were based on inside information: every candidate is an insider regarding his or her own race! What if the candidate knows a personal scandal is ready to break? What if he or she knows money is running out, or the campaign’s polls look dire?

Pages: 1 2

And Another Metaphorical Canary Dies In The Mine Of Democracy…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

This can’t happen in a healthy democracy, or a healthy culture for that matter.

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is so clearly corrupt and a crook that even her corrupt party wouldn’t defend her. That’s quite an achievement. Democrats wouldn’t even go through their usual spin and denial routine, like the Axis did to pretend Joe Biden, the brain-damaged President Democrats inflicted on the nation, wasn’t an empty shell unfit to be in the White House. This is the party that insists to this day (at least publicly) that Kamala Harris ran a flawless campaign and was only defeated because too many Americans won’t vote for a sort-of black woman to be President. Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from Congress because she knew that the House ethics investigation was about to expose her and that she faced a bi-partisan expulsion.

The panel had previously found her guilty of 25 ethics violations, among them stealing $5 million dollars in federal disaster-aid funds to support her 2021 campaign. The two-year investigation included interviews of 28 witnesses and examination of more than 33,000 documents. Never mind, though: Cherfilus-McCormick filed on April 17 to run again for her seat in South Florida, where apparently dupes, fools and ignoramuses run like salmon at mating time. A political operative told reporters, “While we would have to check with the lawyers to see if Cherfilus-McCormick can run using Cell Block C as her residence, it isn’t clear that there is anyone in that district who can beat her if she runs again.” The district, he explained, is “heavily reliant on name recognition,” and the expensive media markets from West Palm Beach to Fort Lauderdale will make it difficult for another Democrat to attract enough support to win.

Oh, that’s wonderful, isn’t it? In other words, enough voters in her district either won’t pay enough attention to realize their Congresswoman is a thief, or they don’t care that the woman is devoid of most ethical instincts necessary to justify the public’s trust.

Pages: 1 2