Open Forum!

/ Jack Marshall

One thought, which many have been expressing: The Axis of Unethical Conduct—the “resistance,” Democrats and their captive media—are hoping that the United States loses the war against Iran. If the U.S. prevails, the party will have to defend its openly anti-American stance across the country. Right now, its only position is “We hate President Trump.” That was also its message in 2024.

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, consider that DHS ad above, which seems to have helped get Kristi Noem fired. It’s moronic, pandering and manipulative, but to my eye, pretty much routine campaign ad stuff. Surely that clip-show didn’t cost $220 million, which is what you might think watching news reports.

The floor is yours…

15 thoughts on “Open Forum!”

  1. Is it unfair to call the Democrat Party an ally of Iran?

    The United States and Israel have the military power to win this war in Iran quickly, resulting in regime change. If the USA halts the war effort, e.g. agree to a ceasefire in order to start negotiations, then the current Iran regime stays in place, and will resume its activities such as replenishment of their stockpile of missiles, restart their nuclear program, and support their proxies (Houthi’s, Hezbollah, Hamas). In other words, the war effort will be as effective as prematurely breaking off chemo therapy, allowing the cancer to return.

    A big risk factor in this war is popular and political support within the USA. The Democrats are giving the Iran government hope, and a possible strategy of the Iran regime is to wait out the Trump administration, and hope that the next administration or Congress will lead to a ceasefire, and another lease on life for the mullah regime in Iran.

    I see no other explanation for the Democrat Party’s vote on war powers in both house then that they see Donald Trump as their primary enemy.

    It used to be that when the United States is engaged in war activity, all of Congress is on Team America. But that is clearly not the case here. The conduct of the Democrats is in line with their conduct during SOTU, and poll results that show that the majority of Democrats regard themselves as not patriotic.

    Is it unfair to call out the Democrat Party for not having the interest of the United States as (a) (their top) priority? Who’s side are they actually on?

    Reply

    • Yep.

      Interesting the Department of War is being very tight-lipped about what they are doing. There have been relatively few reports of targets hit and films of buildings being blown up. The media make a big deal out of every drone strike the Iranians succeed in getting through. They really do seem to be rooting for the Iranians. There’s certainly no tactical benefit to everyone knowing what our targets have been and will be.

      Reply

    • Cees– [can I call you “Cees”?]

      Short answer is YES. Longer answer: The Dems are openly opposing the efforts by the administration to rid the planet of the dominant source of terrorism. Iran has been taking military action against the US and Israel, for over 45 years. For the Dems to openly attempt to hobble the effort makes them a solid ally of Iran and thus, an enemy of the US.

      This is in addition to their anti-DHS posture that leaves our home territory open to attack by the sleeper cells they imported during the Obama and Biden administrations with the open border bulls**t.

      And this is ALL Democrats…. party leaders and supporting voters… every damn one.

      Reply

  2. So, if Ilhan Omar was briefed (as reported) about an imminent attack on Iran and then tweeted to the world a warning that we were going to attack Iran soon (which she did), what is the crime? It is being widely reported that when a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is briefed about military action, it is OK to tweet about it. What do you think?

    Reply

  4. Surprised no one on here has covered the John Davidson issue at the BAFTA awards. It’s been going on for the last two weeks.

    Short summary is man with a rare for of Tourette is invited to BAFTA awards for a movie about his life living with this rare form of tourettes. During presentation, man shouts black no-no word due to his Tourettes and is now being crucified in the media.

    Certainly there are ethical matters to consider here or is this just Res ipsa loquitur?

    Reply

          • You might have to scroll a bit to see A M Golden’s comment. Sometimes the link goes to the comment and sometimes it seems to just go to the comment section.

            Reply

        • Edward just posted the link to the entry.

          Anyone want to chat about the BAFTA’s this week?

          In between reading “Crime and Punishment”, “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn”, “Three Sisters” and “A Room with a View”, I became fascinated by what may be an ethics zugzwang situation.

          (UPDATE: This week, I read “Mrs. Dalloway”, Mutiny on the Bounty”, “The Tempest” and “Watership Down”)

          At the BAFTA’s, a Tourette Syndrome sufferer named John Davidson was present in the audience because he was the subject of an entry called, “I Swear”. The film covered the difficulties he faces as a sufferer of a condition that causes him to blurt out words – sometimes offensive ones – randomly and unpredictably. The audience at the BAFTA’s was informed of this.

          Unfortunately, during the ceremony, when black actors Delroy Lindo and Michael B. Jordan were on-stage, Mr. Davidson blurted out “Queen Mother” of racial slurs (borrowing from “A Christmas Story”): the N-dash-dash-dash-dash-dash word.

          https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/bafta-awards-2026-tourettes-n-word-outburst?srsltid=AfmBOopSsZTrokeNhnuxlobcyVG_tXIz9P2iepJjVBLZCMTX1NuhxcKf

          Observations:

          1. Host Alan Cumming addressed the situation: “You may have noticed some strong language in the background. This can be part of how Tourette Syndrome shows up for some people as the film explores that experience…Thanks for your understanding and for helping create a respectful space for everyone.” This was an appropriate and diplomatic way to handle it.
          2. Nevertheless, the African-American community has a grievance. I’ve seen all manner of comments this week from people who do not believe Mr. Davidson would have said the word if he hadn’t been thinking it. Clearly more awareness of how Tourette Syndrome works, like the film in question, is needed. Jamie Foxx posted on Instagram that Davidson meant what he said. Wendell ranted on X: “It’s infuriating that the first reaction wasn’t complete and full throatted [sic] apologies to Delroy Lindo and Michael B Jordan. The insult to them takes priority. It doesn’t matter the reasoning for the racist slur.”
          3. “At the Warner Bros. after-party following the ceremony, Lindo told Vanity Fair that he and Jordan “did what we had to do” while presenting—but that he also wished “someone from BAFTA spoke to us afterward.”I understand why Lindo and Jordan were upset at the nature of the outburst. Is it not somewhat infantizing to need someone from BAFTA to speak to them? They are grown men who are surely capable of realizing that Davidson didn’t shout this out deliberately or to slur them personally. Why do they need anyone to speak to them? To reassure them? To virtue signal?
          4. Davidson left the auditorium after the incident. Apparently, he’d had a couple of outbursts during the monologue, too, but – as the audience had been warned ahead of time – Cumming let those go. Critics argue that Davidson should have been removed after the initial non-racial outbursts or even kept out of the auditorium altogether. This is where the zugzwang enters the picture. Isn’t it ableism to keep a disabled man out of an awards ceremony featuring a film about him just because he may disrupt the ceremony with random outbursts? Does the need of the television and ceremony audiences, on top of Lindo and Jordan, not to hear offensive racial slurs trump Davidson’s need for inclusion? Who wins the DEI battle this time? Is there anything the BAFTA’s could have done differently? Should they have put Davidson in a separate room with a video hook-up and muted it? Should they have explained to him ahead of time that they couldn’t risk an offensive outburst and he wouldn’t be accommodated at the ceremony? Should they have told the audience, Lindo and Jordan to grow up and not take it personally? Disability advocates would have been the ones to pile on the BAFTAs instead of blacks
          5. Davidson released a statement that critics are also bashing because there’s no apology from him for the word he involuntarily shouted. Did he have the obligation to give that “full-throated” apology Pierce demanded (imo: grovel) for his unintended offense? I do believe apologies are appropriate sometimes even if the slight is not deliberate.This is his statement:“I wanted to thank BAFTA and everyone involved in the awards last night for their support and understanding and inviting me to attend the broadcast. I appreciated the announcement to the auditorium in advance of the recording, warning everyone that my tics are involuntary and are not a reflection of my personal beliefs. I was heartened by the round of applause that followed this announcement and felt welcomed and understood in an environment that would normally be impossible for me. In addition to the announcement by Alan Cumming, the BBC and BAFTA,  I can only add that I am, and always have been deeply mortified if anyone considers my involuntary tics to be intentional or to carry any meaning.”“I was in attendance to celebrate the film of my life, I SWEAR, which more than any film or TV documentary, explains the origins, condition, traits and manifestations of Tourette Syndrome. I have spent my life trying to support and empower the Tourette’s community and to teach empathy, kindness and understanding from others and I will continue to do so. I chose to leave the auditorium early into the ceremony as I was aware of the distress my tics were causing.”

          What do you think?

          Reply

          • Seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me. What’s UNreasonable is people refusing to accept an apology or explanation unless it’s done exactly the way they want.

            Reply

Leave a comment

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