This is a different sort of Ethics Quiz. Usually we consider whether particular conduct is ethical or unethical, but not in this instance. The conduct this Ethics Quiz examines is unethical by definition.
Ethics Alarms last looked at the nauseating saga of little Navy Joan Roberts [Biden] in January, here. She is the 5-year-old love child (or at least one of them) of President Biden’s wastrel son Hunter, of laptop and Burisma fame. That means she is also President Biden’s granddaughter. There is no way around it: that’s a fact, established by science, which we know Joe worships.
This week, the lawsuit and paternity dispute regarding Hunter, Navy Joan and her mother, Lunden Roberts were resolved in a settlement that involved Hunter agreeing to a new level of child support and Lunden agreeing not to legally change Navy’s last name to Biden. Everything about this case reveals new vistas in Hunter’s creepiness, but really, we knew that, and the fact that a Presidential offspring is an embarrassment is neither relevant to assessing the character of the father nor especially unusual. What is unusual is Joe Biden’s cruel treatment of a little girl who has done nothing to deserve it, and that does reflect on the President’s character.
For some reason—and to be fair, Joe was never too bright—the President apparently believes that his much stated dedication to his family requires that he reject an innocent member of that family as well as lie about it. I quoted Jonathan Turley on the subject in January:
The position of Hunter in court has been disgraceful, but the media has largely ignored the matter. It has also ignored the utter lack of support from President Joe Biden and the First Lady, who tellingly omitted a stocking for Navy Joan as one of their grandchildren. (The dog and cat did receive stockings). There is no record that Joe or Jill Biden have ever sought to meet, let alone embrace, their grandchild. The President has, however, sought to deny the child security protection (despite his son’s concern for her “peaceful existence”). Joe Biden has long campaigned against “deadbeat Dads” but when a Fox reporter asked about Hunter’s refusal to pay child support, President Biden snapped at him and refused to answer the question on the “personal matter.”
In an article yesterday about the new developments in Hunterland, the New York Times revealed even more revolting facts. In strategy meetings in recent years, Biden’s aides have been told “according to two people familiar with the discussions”that Joe has only six grandchildren and never to state that he has seven, The story reminds readers that in a proclamation issued on Father’s Day, the President said that his father taught him “that, above all, family is the beginning, middle and end — a lesson I have passed down to my children and grandchildren” and that “family is life’s greatest blessing and responsibility.” Apparently, however, this is not a blessing that Biden is willing to extend to his own granddaughter. In the same vein, Biden says that he’s “very proud” of Hunter, and supports him by including his son on official trips and making sure that he is on the guest list at state dinners….but is not sufficiently proud of his son to acknowledge his son’s daughter’s existence. In April, Biden listed six of his grandchildren by name during a “take your child to work day” event at the White House, and said, “I have six grandchildren, and I’m crazy about them. And I speak to them every single day. Not a joke.”
Not a joke, just a lie, actually a couple of lies. Who believes Joe talks to every one of his grandchildren, even those he acknowledges, “every day”? Meanwhile, the media’s pro-Biden propaganda machine continues to aid and abet his deceptions. Oprah’s magazine “O,” for example [Full disclosure: I once contributed to a regular ethics column in “O” until Oprah decided that her fans weren’t interested in ethics] informed readers last November that “President Biden’s grandchildren include Hunter’s four children—Naomi, 28; Finnegan, 22; Maisy, 21; and Beau, 2; as well as the children of the late Beau Biden—Natalie, 18; and Robert Hunter Biden II, 16.”
The White House tells the news media what lies to promote, and the news media does its bidding.
The Times article, typically and nauseatingly, actually tries to mitigate Biden’s conduct in this matter, implying and even stating that it has no legitimate political significance:
Though a trial planned for mid-July has been averted, people on both sides fear that the political toxicity surrounding the case will remain. Already, it has been extensively covered in conservative media, from Breitbart to Fox News, and conservative commentators assailed the Biden family after news of the settlement….[Hunter] will remain one of his father’s political vulnerabilities. Since his addiction spiraled out of control and his dealings with foreign governments caught the attention of conservatives, the younger Mr. Biden’s choices have become grist for memes, conservative cable news panels and Republican fund-raising.
In other words, “Republicans pounce!” My question is, why aren’t Democrats and progressives equally disgusted by the President’s treatment of a five-year- old girl? I suppose the whole problem would have been averted if Navy’s mother had just done the right thing and aborted her….it’s the progressive way.
The Times also asserts that Hunter’s domestic mess has no interest to voters. Republican pollster Frank Luntz (who has lost much of his credibility in recent years) told the Times that it was “a waste of time” to focus on attacking the President’s family because voters don’t care about Hunter Biden as much as they care about other issues. “You have the responsibility to hold people accountable, but I want to be clear: It will not change a single vote,” he said of Hunter Biden’s legal and personal problems.
Nonsense. The claim that Donald Trump’s character is too flawed for a President was the crux of Biden’s 2020 campaign, and Joe was supposed to be a POTUS Americans could be proud of even when it was obvious that he had deteriorated into shuffling geezer on the cusp of senility. Does Luntz not know anything about how Americans vote for Presidents? It is crucial that Presidential candidates be likable and that they display qualities of character that engender trust (well, unless one is running against Hillary Clinton). Is someone who treats their own granddaughter the way Biden is treating Navy Joan admirable or trustworthy?
In Human Events, Libby Eamon makes an impassioned argument that the answer is “No!”:
A child, as Biden would likely agree, is not to be held liable for the circumstances of their parentage. In fact, this is something he has repeated when it comes to the children of illegal immigrants who were brought here as children. He has more regard for the innocence of strangers than for his own grandchild…. if there were no other reason to vote Biden out of office his absolute monstrous, entitled, elitist, narcissistic, prideful, downright evil refusal to acknowledge his own blood is reason enough to removal the horrible excuse for a man from the White House….Could any of us imagine the audacity to tell our own child that their child is not deserving of our family name? ….What kind of monster would do this, and do it with so much righteousness? Biden made his name off of family, loyalty, and values, and now, when the rubber meets the road, it turns out he stands for nothing but himself and his own imaginary reputation.
So…
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is this query:
Ethics Alarms 
None, zip, nada. A horrible excuse for a man, indeed.
Beat me to it.
If there were, he would have made it by now. Has he? Has he even TRIED? I rest my case.
Well, he does have a Catch-22 problem: he can’t defend ignoring his granddaughter’s existence without acknowledging her existence. Can’t wait to hear how Karine tries to spin it, though.
We have our answer! She was asked today, and said, “I don’t have anything to share from here.”
Try as I might, I probably have to say “No.”
The only line I can think of, and it is not a good one, is that it is out of respect for his son. To acknowledge his son’s daughter, when his son doesn’t, inserts himself into his son’s “business” (and Biden has never discussed his son’s business dealings with him). That would create for an awkward Christmas if his “estranged” granddaughter came over with his son’s ex-fling.
To some extent, Joe can justify butting out, but I don’t think he is doing it right.
Even if there is some merit to Joe’s “non-intervention,” it would not seem to extend to ignoring the truth. It should not extend to his neglecting to tell his son that his behavior is wrong. Biden should openly admit that he has 7 grandchildren (I presume paternity has been legally established–sorry this story is not of pressing interest to me), even if he does not invite his granddaughter over for Christmas. I think he could be truthful-and remain distant from his grandchild. Behind the scenes, however, if he is really honest about the importance of family, he should give Hunter the What For. But, he should not do that in public; he should never take sides against the family (in favor of an ex-fling).
He should be honest, even if he says little (which is particularly good advice for him).
-Jut
I’ll see if anyone can top this, but it is essentially what I was looking for. His treatment of the little girl can be defended (barely); his lie that she doesn’t exist cannot.
Jut
He should have had that talk when Hunter was “flinging” with his dead brother’s wife.
From what I have read about the timeline relating to his involvement with his current wife Jill, Joe was still married to his wife who was ultimately killed in the MVA. The only difference between Navy’s mother and Jill Biden was their occupation.
Chris Marschner,
The fact that he fucked up before has no bearing on what is the right thing to do NOW. It’s never too late to do the right thing.
-Jut
“Everything about this case reveals new vistas in Hunter’s creepiness, but really, we knew that,…What is unusual is Joe Biden’s cruel treatment of a little girl who has done nothing to deserve it, and that does reflect on the President’s character.”
Let’s face it; the only way the little girl can ever gain favor with her grandpa is if she surrenders her soul and allows grandpa-jo to sniff and fondle her. Gawd, I threw up in my mouth a little just writing this. Sometimes that is how disgusting and disturbing reality is, but here we are. Good times.
The answer to Jack’s question is a ~NO~ that does not require an explanation, in my world anyway.
Here is a question for Jack: do you believe that Biden still deserves the respect of the office of Prez that you have advocated for and explained why in previous posts?
Yes.
That respect is symbolic and a matter of civility and protecting the office. I felt the level of vulgar ridicule Clinton was subjected to during the Monica scandal was over the line, and the way Trump was treated similarly damaging to the office. I still hold that “Let’s go Brandon!” crosses the line as well. If we denigrate the office, then it becomes harder to determine when the individual in the office debases it. Criticism is fine, even the harshest criticism. Respect for the office still is crucial. Biden, Trump, Bush, Nixon, LBJ…the specifics don’t matter.
That is the best explanation for respecting the office I have ever heard
Thanks. It’s the product of about 50 years of thinking about it.
The answer to that one is clearly a resounding “NO”. Also. it is absolutely disgusting. It is a clear indication that this…person… is not fit to be President. I cannot and will not call him a man.
No defense at all. IMO, this is the most despicable of SloJo’s many questionable behaviors. At least the child is not likely to be invited to the White House for a sleepover and shower.
Is there anything that would stop Navy, herself, from changing her name to “Biden” in a few years?
The press blackout is reminiscent of NPR’s response to the laptop story: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”
Probably the best I can say in Biden’s defense is that the pubic knowledge of this fiasco is probably missing all the sordid details. And given his dementia, he might truly not know that Navy actually exists. I watched my grandmother slowly decline in dementia to the point that she didn’t know who all her progeny were, and invented brothers she never had.
Still, if we assume that Biden is not that far gone, and that a lot the public details are accurate (Hunter has been paying child support for some time and recently wanted to reduce the payments, for example) then Biden has shown the lie of his struggling against deadbeat dads, his lie about family importance, and, for the 13,273rd time, the lie that he believes anything Catholic.
The good news is that the Court has enjoined the mother from giving the child the Biden name.
Therefore, the child will forever not live under that dark existence.
The Biden money, however, should keep rolling in for her upkeep and the maintenance of the mother.
Nothing can stop Navy Joan from calling herself Biden when she is old enough, and The Streisand Effect will stop Hunter or Joe from doing anything about it.
According to the settlement, the child gets to keep some of her dad’s paintings.
That’s nice. That’s worth, what? $250.00?
I wonder why the mom agreed to the child support modification orders. She would have had a better chance with the judge.
jvb
Two thoughts; but I don’t consider either one acceptable.
The first is time. It is the best thing I can come up with and it doesn’t even apply. The presidency is demanding. I don’t think anyone would begrudge him if he didn’t have the time. That clearly isn’t the case here. He has time for six, why not the seventh?
To acknowledge it gives credence to it. I imagine they are mostly waiting for it to blow over. Maybe about a year from now when it looks like he’s down in the polls, they will drag her out.
But, doesn’t this child live in Arkansas?
jvb
My father had the following framed quote in his dental office: “No other success can compensate for failure in the home”. He’s always lived by that quote, and I can’t imagine my own parents treating an illegitimate grandkid the way the Bidens have. They would certainly give an earful to any of us who had a child out of wedlock (but neither me nor any of my siblings have done so), but they’d love the kid the way they love the legit offspring. I was with my parents, brother and his wife and kids for the 4th and it was wonderful. Everyone deserves to be part of a loving family, and I believe that those who fail to provide that to their descendants will have to answer for it in the hereafter.
Now, with that being said, the quote is from one of our late church leaders, and is spiritual in context. It’s certainly not my place to judge Pres. Biden’s soul itself, and what he does with his family has much less effect on me than what he does as president. But I feel I can safely say that his conduct regarding his granddaughter should neither be praised nor emulated.
There isn’t anything that MY ethics could justify, but I have a good guess that Biden does and all his friends probably agree with it. The rationale is that the girl’s mother is low class. She is tainted by her profession and her lineage. I mean, her ancestors probably didn’t even own slaves. Now, she could have worked in a muffler repair shop and it would also apply. Trump wasn’t accepted as part of the elite because he is low-class. He may have money, but he made that in construction and he had to deal with union people, mob people, and blue-collar workers directly. He is tainted with manual labor. This is one reason such people couldn’t accept him as president. I mean, his family wasn’t high-class enough to own slaves either.
Could the senility defense apply?