I doubt that Ethics Alarms will be able to keep up with the predicted (and coming to pass) pre-election hysteria and ends justify the means overload that the Axis of Unethical Conduct (“the resistance,” Democrats and the mainstream media) are inflicting on the nation as they fear their fake DEI candidate for President will lose, as she so richly deserves to. It is almost entire fueled by Big Lies, fake news, ad hominem attacks, and anything that might distract from Harris’s increasingly obvious incompetence and dishonesty.

I am serious when I say that I only drop by Fox News, CNN and MSNBC for about five minutes each day, and it’s a amazing the garbage I see anyway. I just heard Kamala Harris tell Anderson Cooper, in last night’s CNN “town hall” (Who believes Harris didn’t have the questions in advance?) that she believes that the border must be secure and that there should be “serious consequences” for illegal immigration…this in the same campaign where she has said that she supports amnesty for illegals as well as citizenship! See, if the “consequences” of illegal immigration are exactly what illegals want, that’s called an “incentive.” Naturally, Cooper didn’t call Harris on this self-evident—stupid, really— contradiction.

Yesterday, my brief stop at CNN heard a “Democratic strategist” tell us that Harris had run an “almost perfect campaign.” A campaign in which a candidate deliberately avoids telling voters what she really believes and intends to accomplish while relying entirely on promoting fear and hate against her opponent and cheerleading for killing more unborn children is “perfect.” Yes, those are the values of today’s Democratic Party, and it isn’t even shy about saying so.

Meanwhile…

1 As discussed here, the revolting New York Times effort to cover for Harris’s McDonald’s fiction consisted entirely of “Harris says so, so it must be true” and the “confirmation” by Wanda Kagan, whom the Times described as “a close friend of Ms. Harris’s when they attended high school together in Montreal.” Not only was the Times citing as evidence double hearsay—Kagan was basing her statement on what she says she heard from Harris’s mother, who has been dead since 2009. Kagan has also been an active part of Harris’s campaign, and spoke at the 2024 Democratic National convention. That is now a reliable source to the New York Times, because its the best they could find to help Harris.

2. Now the Axis is playing the sexism card with gusto, as the Harris campaign continues to impugn the motives of men who find a ridiculously unqualified candidate ridiculously unqualified. PBS spent a long segment with Axis pundits blaming Harris’s lack of connection with voters on anti-female bias and the fact, according to fake conservative Times columnist David Brooks, young men who “have lower graduation rates, lower grades, lower work force participation rates, higher unemployment.” You know, dummies.

Ann Althouse had a nice rejoinder for a New York Times article, “Why Gender May Be the Defining Issue of the Election/The issue is rarely directly addressed by either Vice President Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. But the 2024 contest is, in ways overt and subtle, a referendum on the role of women in American life,” that contained this howler:

“If she were a man, would this race be this close?” Gov. Janet Mills of Maine asked a clutch of Democratic women after campaigning for Ms. Harris in suburban Pittsburgh. Joyce Reinoso, one of those women, shot back, “Oh, she would’ve won three weeks ago.”…

Said Althouse, ignoring the idiocy of that last bit, “If Kamala Harris were a man, she would not have been chosen for Joe Biden’s Vice President, and if she were not Vice President, she would not have been the one that the nomination that was stolen from him got handed to. She wouldn’t be anywhere near the presidency.”

Never mind, though. Like Harris’s illegal immigration lie to Cooper, these desperate attempts to do and say anything don’t have to make sense. They just have to work, like Harry Reid saying that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes.

3. This might be the worst…so far. The Atlantic published a Jeffrey Goldberg piece titled, “Trump: ‘I Need The Kind Of Generals Hitler Had.’” 

And it gets worse from there. You see, Jeffrey Goldberg uses the first few paragraphs to go after President Trump by exploiting the death of Spc. Vanessa Guillén. A young soldier who was brutally murdered by another soldier who, along with his girlfriend, attempted to burn her remains. 

Goldberg writes that President Trump, while meeting with the family of Spc. Vanessa Guillén, a young soldier who was brutally murdered by another soldier who, along with his girlfriend, attempted to burn her remains. Trump offered his support and wanted them to know he’d help with costs out of his own pocket if they needed it. Then Goldberg writes about what he says happened during a meeting months later, in December 2020.  “According to two people present at the meeting, Trump asked, “Did they bill us for the funeral? What did it cost?”

According to attendees, and to contemporaneous notes of the meeting taken by a participant, an aide answered: Yes, we received a bill; the funeral cost $60,000. Trump became angry. “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a fucking Mexican!” He turned to his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and issued an order: “Don’t pay it!” Later that day, he was still agitated. “Can you believe it?” he said, according to a witness. “Fucking people, trying to rip me off.”Khawam, the family attorney, told me she sent the bill to the White House, but no money was ever received by the family from Trump. Some of the costs, Khawam said, were covered by the Army (which offered, she said, to allow Guillén to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery) and some were covered by donations. Ultimately, Guillén was buried in Houston.

We are supposed to believe though Golberg won’t say who were his sources and who was at the meeting. This is, by definition, unethical and untrustworthy journalism.

The soldier’s sister, Mayra, wrote that Trump was nothing but respectful and generous regarding her sister, and condemned the Atlantic for exploiting her death for a partisan political hit job.Natalie Kwaham, the Guillén family attorney, wrote of Goldberg, ” He used and exploited my clients, and Vanessa Guillen’s murder … for cheap political gain.” She added, “After having dealt with hundreds of reporters in my legal career, this is unfortunately the first time I have to go on record and call out Jeffrey Goldberg: not only did he misrepresent our conversation but he outright LIED in HIS sensational story.”

That’s OK, as long as The Atlantic’s lies help Harris win the election, it’s for the greater good.

4. You’d think that after this..

…calling Trump Hitler and a fascist would be de rigueur for the Axis, but no. An October 22 article in the Times by Michael S. Schmidt declared, “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator/John Kelly, the Trump White House’s longest-serving chief of staff, said that he believed that Donald Trump met the definition of a fascist.”

In it, we got a double “appeal to authority.” trump is a fascist because John Kelly, Trump’s dismissed former chief of staff, said so, and he said so citing Wikipedia. The fact that Trump was President for four years and acted much less like a fascist than his predecessor doesn’t matter to the Times, nor, naturally, to Harris, who told Anderson Cooper that yes, Trump is a fascist.

Althouse knocked this one out of the park as well. She writes in part,

Both Kelly and Harris took a prompt from the questioner and agreed, embracing a word that they didn’t really know. Kelly was a little more restrained: He checked Wikipedia and read the first sentence out loud before answering. Ridiculous! … Kelly stopped in the middle of a list of characteristics. He didn’t see fit to continue reading: “subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.” Why did Kelly stop? Did he just get tired of reading? … Or did he look ahead and think for a half second and realize that he couldn’t agree that Trump is opposed to individualism? The link on “individual interests” goes to the Wikipedia article “Individualism.” In the style of John Kelly, I’ll read the beginning:

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, and social outlook that emphasizes the intrinsic worth of the individual. Individualists promote realizing one’s goals and desires, valuing independence and self-reliance, and advocating that the interests of the individual should gain precedence over the state or a social group, while opposing external interference upon one’s own interests by society or institutions such as the government. Individualism makes the individual its focus, and so starts “with the fundamental premise that the human individual is of primary importance in the struggle for liberation.”

To a leftist, that sounds right-wing and… ironically… fascist. But we only have 12 days left. We can only use short nasty words and sentence fragments. No time left for the extra credit assignment: Using the Wikipedia definition of “fascism,” outline[s] the argument that the Democratic Party presents the greater danger.

Brava, Ann (who claims to be “undecided”). “Using the Wikipedia definition of “fascism,” outline[s] the argument that the Democratic Party presents the greater danger.”

Perfect.