President Donald Trump Can’t Even Be An Ethics Hero Properly…

Yesterday, at the last possible minute, President Trump endorsed Andrew Cuomo in a typically antic Truth Social post. From that perspective, it’s an act of ethical heroism. He’s doing something that is not in his best interests or those of his party. Trump clearly loves New York City even though it doesn’t love him. He is choosing the future welfare of the city’s mostly Democratic residents over what will benefit his party, the Republican Party, by throwing the weight and prestige of his office behind a Democrat (running as an Independent, but never mind) rather than the GOP spoiler, Curtis Sliwa.

Kudos for the President. Making sure as few people as possible vote for Sliwa, who is on the way to becoming New York City’s Harold Staasen, is contrary to principles of party loyalty but the right thing to do. Trump’s endorsement:

“If Communist Candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the Election for Mayor of New York City, it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required, to my beloved first home, because of the fact that, as a Communist, this once great City has ZERO chance of success, or even survival! It can only get worse with a Communist at the helm, and I don’t want to send, as President, good money after bad. It is my obligation to run the Nation, and it is my strong conviction that New York City will be a Complete and Total Economic and Social Disaster should Mamdani win. A vote for Curtis Sliwa (who looks much better without the beret!) is a vote for Mamdani. Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!”

Trump being Trump and reflexively perverse, he just had to do the right thing in the worst possible way, threatening the city and its residents in the process. Thus did he cross over the line from endorsing a candidate (normal, ethical) to threatening the city if it doesn’t do what he wants. That’s election interference, because he is applying coercion, or what feels like it.

Continue reading

Nah, There’s No “Deep State”…

Among the furious “It isn’t what it is” gaslighting that the Mad Left routinely engages in—“Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!”; “Nah, Biden wasn’t suffering from dementia in the White House, he was sharp as a tack!”; “Nah, Kamala Harris wasn’t a DEI nominee!”; “Nah, there’s no such thing as the Antifa!” and so on, and so on—the Trump Deranged refuse to admit that there is an embedded progressive “Deep State” (and often not so deep) that set out to sabotage Trump in his first term and to do everything possible to prevent his re-election in 2020.

One of many metaphorical smoking guns regarding the efforts of the Deep State was the organized effort by U.S. intelligence officials to make certain that the evidence of Biden family influence peddling on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop was discredited and avoided by the Axis media prior to the 2020 election. Shortly after The New York Post’s broke the story in October 2020 51 then current and former intelligence officials signed an open letter challenging the authenticity of the laptop.

Though they had no direct knowledge of the situation, the 51 abused their positions, authority and intelligence credentials to undermine The Post’s reporting weeks before the 2020 election. Politico’s headline was typical of how the letter was interpreted by the news media and the public :“Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.” Twitter banned the Post’s story from its platform. During the second 2020 presidential debate held on October 22, 2020, Joe Biden repeated the narrative, saying, “Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan!” (Fact check? Of course not.) Biden later repeated the claim in a “60 Minutes” interview held on October 25, 2020. No fact check then, either. Mission accomplished! The letter did its job (it worked) and Biden was elected.

Continue reading

Unethical Quote of the Month: Un-Named California Lawyer

Gail Herriot is Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law and a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights since 2007. She is a conservative, so much of the civil rights racket (“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Eric Hoffer) objects to her existence.

Herriot recently posted the following jaw-dropping letter that she received from a member of the California Bar:

Dear Ms. Heriot,
 
This letter serves as a formal cease and desist demand regarding your ongoing, public, and targeted efforts to undermine and harass the Black community and its advocates for equity, in direct violation of state and federal civil rights laws and your ethical obligations as a member of the bar.
 
Your activities—including those publicly associated with the California Foundation for Equal Rights (CFER) (among others) and campaigns explicitly opposing Black-focused equity —constitute racial targeting and harassment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and applicable state hate crime and anti-discrimination statutes. Such conduct is not protected expression when it rises to the level of coordinated intimidation or bias-based obstruction of legally protected programs. It is particularly egregious that your public campaigns have focused solely on efforts benefiting the Black community, while remaining silent on or even supportive of state and federal allocations to other racial or ethnic groups. 
 
For example: In 2021 and 2022, the State of California directed substantial funding—over $165 million—to AAPI anti-hate initiatives, a commendable effort to address rising hate incidents against Asian Americans.
 
In 2024, the California Legislature authorized over $300 million in support for Holocaust survivors and members of the Jewish community, recognizing their suffering and need for continued support.
 
Despite these allocations, your campaigns have not targeted or criticized these initiatives—only those aimed at repairing centuries of harm done to Black Americans, who remain the most frequent victims of race-based hate crimes nationwide according to federal data. Your selective and racially targeted opposition to Black equity initiatives, combined with your public standing as an attorney, member of a federal civil rights commission and educator, magnifies the discriminatory impact and constitutes a pattern of bias-based harassment under both state and federal law.
 
Accordingly, you are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from any further direct or indirect harassment, public misinformation, or racially targeted advocacy directed toward the Black community or programs designed to support it. Continued actions of this nature may result in:
 
Formal referral to state bar disciplinary authorities for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning bias, harassment, and discrimination; and
 
Referral to appropriate civil rights enforcement agencies for investigation under state and federal hate crime and civil rights statutes.
 
Please provide written confirmation within ten (10) business days that you have received this notice and that you will comply fully with its terms.
 
Warmest Regards,

Continue reading

The President’s “60 Minutes” Interview

President Trump sat down for a full interview with “60 Minutes” yesterday, and was grilled by CBS correspondent Norah O’Donnell (as I was once, though not on that show). The transcript and the video are here. Under the new regime of CBS News Czar (“Editor-in-Chief”) Bari Weiss, there were no deceptively edited sections as in the infamous and unethical (and, I believe, illegal) Kamala Harris interview a year ago when the network switched around her responses to try to deceive voters into believing that the Democrat isn’t, you know, a babbling idiot.

This post’s purpose isn’t to critique O’Donnell’s questions. She was appropriately respectful, aggressive and professional except that her facial expressions conveyed her hostility, which is unprofessional but now common practice among Axis broadcast journalists. The shot above was typical: she looked at the President of the United States as if he were a six-foot talking cockroach. Nor am I going to praise or criticize the substance of Trump’s responses, though I note that he showed an excellent knowledge of American Presidential history when he pronounced Joe Biden as our Worst President Ever.

It is simply to point out that the Trump Derangement narrative that this President is mentally failing and as cognitively disabled as Joe Biden (“Just in a different way” as one sufferer told me on Halloween) is either delusional or deliberately dishonest. The interview was slam-dunk proof of that, and yet this slander/libel is Axis cant now. I regard the claim as evidence of a genuine disruption of thinking ability. Bias makes you stupid, and in this case, bias is making these poor people ridiculous.

Continue reading

End of the Baseball Season Ethics Recap, 11/2/25, Part 2

For those readers who ignore the EA baseball posts: this isn’t one, except for this brief note on baseball competence. Isiah Kiner-Falefa of the Toronto Blue Jays pulled a (as it turned out) game-losing brick in the 9th inning when he was out by a mini-micron trying to score the winning run from third base. He was out in a force play, with the catcher barely scraping home plate before the base-runner’s shoe hit it. At the time, I thought, “Why is he sliding?” then forgot about it in the excitement of the play and all that followed the rest of that incredible game. But it is being pointed out in some post-game articles this morning that if Kiner-Falefa had just run straight to the plate, he would have been safe….and there was no reason for him to slide. It isn’t hindsight. The bases were loaded. It was going to be a force play at home if the ball was hit on the ground, and it was. A slide always gets a runner to a base a bit slower than running through. The catcher, Will Smith, didn’t need to tag him, and a slide is only necessary to avoid a tag. The Jays infielder’s mental mistake lost the Series as surely as “Snodgrass’s muff” or Bill Buckner’s error (more than that one, actually), but I bet nobody remembers it in the wild collage of everything else that happened. Poor Jays catcher Kirk will feel like the goat for hitting into a DP with the tying and winning runs on base with only one out to lose the game in the 10th. . But the #1 culprit was Kiner-Falefa. An MLB player should know the rules.

Now on to more mundane matters…

Continue reading

End of the Baseball Season Ethics Recap, 11/2/25, Part 1

If you missed last night’s Game 7 of the epic World Series just completed, you have my sympathy; if you missed it, or the entire Series really, because baseball isn’t part of your life you have my pity. Let me quote here the late, great Roger Angell, baseball’s Bard, writing about the only better World Series I’ve ever watched, the 1975 edition where the Cincinnati Reds beat (barely) the Boston Red Sox, also in seven games. He was effusing specifically about Carlton Fisk’s famous home run in the 12th inning (I was there!) in his New Yorker essay “Agincourt and After”:

Carlton Fisk, leading off the bottom of the twelfth against Pat Darcy, the eighth Reds pitcher of the night—it was well into morning now, in fact—socked the second pitch up and out, farther and farther into the darkness above the lights, and when it came down at last, re-illuminated, it struck the topmost, innermost edge of the screen inside the yellow left-field foul pole and glanced sharply down and bounced on the grass: a fair ball, fair all the way. I was watching the ball, of course, so I missed what everyone on television saw—Fisk waving wildly, weaving and writhing and gyrating along the first-base line, as he wished the ball fair, forced it fair with his entire body. He circled the bases in triumph, in sudden company with several hundred fans, and jumped on home plate with both feet, and John Kiley, the Fenway Park organist, played Handel’s “Hallelujah Chorus,” fortissimo, and then followed with other appropriately exuberant classical selections, and for the second time that evening I suddenly remembered all my old absent and distant Sox-afflicted friends (and all the other Red Sox fans, all over New England), and I thought of them—in Brookline, Mass., and Brooklin, Maine; in Beverly Farms and Mashpee and Presque Isle and North Conway and Damariscotta; in Pomfret, Connecticut, and Pomfret, Vermont; in Wayland and Providence and Revere and Nashua, and in both the Concords and all four Manchesters; and in Raymond, New Hampshire (where Carlton Fisk lives), and Bellows Falls, Vermont (where Carlton Fisk was born), and I saw all of them dancing and shouting and kissing and leaping about like the fans at Fenway—jumping up and down in their bedrooms and kitchens and living rooms, and in bars and trailers, and even in some boats here and there, I suppose, and on backcountry roads (a lone driver getting the news over the radio and blowing his horn over and over, and finally pulling up and getting out and leaping up and down on the cold macadam, yelling into the night), and all of them, for once at least, utterly joyful and believing in that joy—alight with it.

…What I do know is that this belonging and caring is what our games are all about; this is what we come for. It is foolish and childish, on the face of it, to affiliate ourselves with anything so insignificant and patently contrived and commercially exploitative as a professional sports team, and the amused superiority and icy scorn that the non-fan directs at the sports nut (I know this look—I know it by heart) is understandable and almost unanswerable. Almost. What is left out of this calculation, it seems to me, is the business of caring—caring deeply and passionately, really caring—which is a capacity or an emotion that has almost gone out of our lives. And so it seems possible that we have come to a time when it no longer matters so much what the caring is about, how frail or foolish is the object of that concern, as long as the feeling itself can be saved. Naïveté—the infantile and ignoble joy that sends a grown man or woman to dancing and shouting with joy in the middle of the night over the haphazardous flight of a distant ball—seems a small price to pay for such a gift.”

Caring is an ethical value.

I’ll get to the other ethics news in Part 2…

Ethics Quiz: The Third Candidate

New York City, which has not had a competent mayor since Michael Bloomberg, is about to punch itself in the face and elect Communist, anti-Semitic, charismatic demagogue Zohran Mamdani as its latest fiasco. One aspect of the perfect storm that is about to allow the City That Never Sleeps to fall into an abyss of its own making is that Mamdani is running in a three-way race, which often helps elects a candidate who would lose in a two-person race. Another is that the only viable alternative to Mamdani is disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo, who in addition to killing hundreds of rest home residents by stashing Wuhan virus victims in close proximity to them, whereupon they sickened and died, was a serial sexual harasser. I wouldn’t vote for the guy to be dog-catcher. There is at least a chance, however, that as mayor of New York Cuomo will make a good faith effort to redeem himself and not leave the Big Apple a smoldering pile of broken dreams. With Mamdani’s proposed policies, disaster is a near certainty.

Continue reading

Ethics Villain Revealed: Barack Obama [Corrected]

For once, the New York Times is reporting one of those over-heard conversations from an anonymous source who is violating trust to reveal it that harms the reputation and image of a progressive hero, though maybe the Times staff is so far gone that it doesn’t realize the import of the leak.

Former President Barack Obama, the Times revealed, phoned New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani today, November 1. The architect of the foundering progressive take-over of American government and culture spoke with the front-runner for “roughly 30-minutes.” According to the leakers, who spoke “on condition of anonymity” to describe the private conversation, Obama said that he “was invested in Mr. Mamdani’s success” beyond the upcoming election. The two (Muslims?) “talked about the challenges of staffing a new administration and building an apparatus capable of delivering on Mr. Mamdani’s agenda of affordability in the city.”

On the call, Obama reportedly spoke admiringly about Mamdani’s campaign. “Your campaign has been impressive to watch,” he told the charismatic communist, according to the sources.

During the campaign (and before it) Mamdani has made it Waterford crystal clear that he supports Hamas and does not believe that Israel has a right to exist. As a watermark of the anti-Semite, he has repeatedly described Israel’s legitimate armed response to the Gazan terror attack of October 7, 2023, as “genocide.” Those not in favor of obliterating Israel might well have regarded these themes in Mamdami campaign for mayor serious missteps. Obama, if the account is to be believed, seems to think being anti-Israel is just hunky-dory, but as we’ve seen, that’s where his party and its most fervent members have been tending for years.

Obama offered to be a “sounding board”—as in coach, mentor, advisor— when Mamdani wins the election, with the two agreeing to meet in person at some point in Washington, D.C.. Mamdani reportedly thanked the former president for the encouragement and told him that he had drawn inspiration for his own recent speech on Islamophobia from Mr. Obama’s speech on race during his first presidential run.

That Mamdani speech was the one in which he implied that voting against him was a sign of bigotry. Yeah, there’s no reason in the world for New Yorkers to be wary of Islam. What did Muslims ever…oh. Right.

A spokeswoman for Obama refused to verify the report, but a spokeswoman for Mamdani said, “Zohran Mamdani appreciated President Obama’s words of support and their conversation on the importance of bringing a new kind of politics to our city.”

You know. Communist politics.

My guess is that Obama is quite ticked off, because this leak almost certainly came from the Mamdani camp, which has seen its candidate’s support dwindle in recent days, though probably not enough.

Continue reading

Ethics Dunce: The Los Angeles Dodgers (Not Really)

Normally this kind of item would be in a potpourri post, but I’m being pulled hither and yon today, so I may be putting up some minor matters piecemeal.

Dodger pitching icon Sandy Koufax was a spectator at all three of the 2025 World Series games at Dodger Stadium last week, including the epic 18 inning Game 3. However, his seating in Game 5 was the object of some controversy. The Dodgers were called out by Mets announcer Howie Rose, among others.

“How does Sandy end up in the second row?” Rose asked on social media. “Maybe those are his permanent, personal seats but Sandy Koufax takes a back seat to no one. Especially at Dodger Stadium.” Others were infuriated that Koufax would rank supposedly lesser seats than celebrity hucksters Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who were also at Game 5 in the seats in front of Sandy.

I like to see American taking the opportunity to denigrate the Renegade Royals: it seemed especially timely given the stupid “No Kings” rallies and L.A.’s position as Trump Derangement Central. Yeah, why not sit the Royals in the bleachers? Behind a pole, maybe! (There are no obstructions in Dodger Stadium.) But the complaint made no sense for many reasons.

  • As even Rose noted, those are Sandy’s regular seats.
  • I speak from experience: at the field box level, the front row is inferior to a few rows higher. Harry and Meghan’s seats were inferior to Sandy’s
  • Magic Johnson, like Koufax an LA sports icon, was in the same row as Koufax—and he’s a part owner of the team.

Still, bashing the Royal Family still feels a lot more American to me than when everyone was salivating over the late Princess Diana. This is progress.

The Sec. of Transportation Tells Kim Kardashian That She’s an Irresponsible Ignorance-Spreading Fool. Good!

In an episode of the reality show “The Kardashians” (My god, is that still on?) Uber Kardashian Kim, the only one of the breed who earned her celebrity (with a sex tape and a huge derriere), told actress Sarah Paulson that she had watched interviews with Buzz Aldrin, who was on the Apollo 11 mission with Neil Armstrong and the second person to walk on the moon, and they convinced her that the moon landing was a government hoax.

“I don’t think we did. I think it was fake,” the Kimster announced. “I’ve seen a few videos on Buzz Aldrin talking about how it didn’t happen. He says it all the time now, in interviews.” Does anyone know what the hell she’s babbling about? The last time I heard about Aldrin in relation to the moonwalk conspiracy theory, he punched a guy in the face for claiming it was true.

Then Kardashian repeated a trope of the ancient conspiracy theory: “There’s no gravity on the moon. Why is the flag blowing?” I view that statement all by itself as signature significance: anyone who says it once is too gullible to be let outside without a keeper, and anyone who says it publicly is an idiot. The “mystery” can be answered by viewing the archived videos or by 3 seconds of googling. Who goes on TV and asserts a non-fact that anyone, including her, can prove false in a trice?

This time, however, big guns were trained on the specific idiot. Sean Duffy, the US Transportation Secretary and acting administrator of NASA, rebutted the whatever-she-is on X. He wrote: “Yes, Kim Kardashian, we’ve been to the moon before … Six times! And even better, NASA Artemis is going back under the leadership of [President Trump]. We won the last space race and we will win this one too.”

Madison, Wis, bloggress Ann Althouse, in one of her “it’s not the topic, it’s the tangents” posts, asks,

“Why is a government official calling out a private citizen who expresses interest in a conspiracy theory? We’re Americans. We have our conspiracy theories. Keep your government nose out of our business. You’re only giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. Why stick your neck out to deny what isn’t true? You’re making it more fun to believe the theory!”

Ann is evoking the “Streisand Effect” with her “You’re only giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.” She’s wrong, maybe even at an Ethics Dunce level. This conspiracy is hardly unknown: there was even a movie about it, and I have encountered moonwalk skeptics periodically ever since the event. “Why is a government official calling out a private citizen who expresses interest in a conspiracy theory?” Because, Ann, celebrities are not “private citizens.” They are public citizens; they make their millions by being famous and by appearing, speaking and misbehaving in public. More Americans by far know who Kim Kardashian is than who know who Sean Duffy is. A disturbing number of Americans, maybe even a majority, believe that being a celebrity (and appearing on TV) indicates virtue, wisdom and intelligence. Celebrity culture helped get Donald Trump elected President. Doesn’t Ann Althouse understand that? Hasn’t she ever heard the rejoinder, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?”

Continue reading