Ethics Dunces

No, John Brown Is NOT a Role Model For “Social Justice Reformers,” and Anyone Who Says So —Like Hakeem Jeffries’s Brother—Is Both Unethical and Dangerous

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

I co-wrote a book about Clarence Darrow (you can buy it here: it’s cheap), and one of the points I made in the Introduction was that the U.S.’s most famous trial lawyer also believed in terrorism. Well, Darrow had his quirks, and he frequently argued that one of his murderer clients should be acquitted because the murder was justified (it worked, too!). He was ethically and morally wrong about Brown, as I asserted here in a post that republished a shortened version of Darrow’s famous eulogy for the anti-slavery vigilante. It was written long after Brown’s death, of course; Darrow used to deliver the speech on anniversaries of Brown’s birthday on May 8. The most famous section of Darrow’s passionate speech:

“The radical of today is the conservative of tomorrow, and other martyrs take up the work through other nights, and the dumb and stupid world plants its weary feet upon the slippery sand, soaked by their blood, and the world moves on.”

Darrow was an early progressive when the movement began, on the extreme end. In his “ends justifies the means” glorification of violence as a means of social change, we can see the seeds of where modern progressives have gone off the metaphorical rails and become a genuine threat to the rule of law and democracy. In Darrow’s time (he was active from 1890 to 1932) there were few progressives who would go as far as Darrow, though the anarchists did. They were the terrorists of the day, but Darrow defended labor leaders who also believed that murdering the exploitive capitalist here and there as well as their political enablers was the right thing to do.

Thus Darrow defended “Big Bill” Haywood (February 4, 1869 – May 18, 1928), an American labor organizer, a founding member and leader of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and a member of the executive committee of the Socialist Party of America. “Big Bill” was indicted for engineering the booby-trap murder of Frank Steunenberg, a former governor of Idaho. Darrow got “Big Bill” off (Just look at this guy! You just know he did it.)…

….but by arguing that even if he was guilty, its shouldn’t matter because he was on the right side. Fortunately, Darrow’s arguments in favor of just murder were confined to the courtroom and his John Brown eulogy once a year.

This week, Hasan Kwame Jeffries , an Ohio State University history professor and the brother of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, declared in a social media post that “John Brown understood that the only way to free Americans from the scourge of white supremacy was to get rid of white supremacists by any means necessary. He was right then. He is right now.” Gee, do you think Prof. Jeffries is at odds with his brother in this appeal to violence? I doubt it.

Prof. Turley has called out the Democratic House minority leader for encouraging violence on the Left, and lionizing John Brown is literally a justification of violence. If Republicans and the news media don’t confront Democrats and the party’s leaders with Prof. Jeffries’s words, they are being negligent and irresponsible.

Pages: 1 2

Unethical (and Tasteless) Tweet Of The Month: Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) [Updated and Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Call me sentimental and patriotic, but on Memorial Day 2026, I believe we have better people to remember than George Floyd, and almost anyone is more appropriate to honor.

We can and should blame President Trump, along with the foolish voters of Georgia, for the fact that someone as unqualified and ethically inert as Sen. Warnock is in Congress today and not haunting a ramshackle church somewhere. You will recall that Trump made the two 2021 special Georgia Senate elections into referendums on the January 6 riots and his claims of a stolen election, and managed to snatch two defeats from the jaws of victory.

Still, using Memorial Day to extol a lifetime street punk who was overdosing on fentanyl while resisting arrest demonstrates a special kind of sick priorities. There is literally nothing, zero, nada, to admire, respect or honor George Floyd for. He was in the right wrong place at the right wrong time, and an audacious cabal of race-hustlers exploited his accidental death by bad cop to extort all manner of weak principled businesses and institutions into white guilt seizures, causing extensive, perhaps irreparable harm to the nation, society, race relations, the justice system and more. Poor dumb, useless George wasn’t at fault for any of this, but Senator Warnock and ethics villains like him were.

Pages: 1 2

Brilliant! Democrats Kill The National Womens’ Museum Because It Wouldn’t Include Non-Women! [Revised and Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Wow.

A veteran EA commenter today who excels in the contrived “gotcha!” accused me of “name-calling” because I consistently describe today’s Democratic Party as aspiring totalitarians, Machiavellian, and cheaters, and say Democrats want to gut the Constitution. It reminded me of the objection in the Continental Congress (as portrayed in “1776”) over Thomas Jefferson’s use of the word “tyrant” to describe England’s King George. Jefferson’s justification of his choice of words: “He is a tyrant.” I bet my critic really be incensed as I write—now—that today’s vote in Congress indicates that the party is also silly, doctrinaire and…wait for it….moronic.

Because it does, and it is.

Democrats, along with a few Republicans who should go the way of Thomas Massey, voted to cancel the Smithsonian’s planned Women’s History Museum because Republicans added language to its astablishment bill defining women in a manner that leaves out Renee Richards, Caitin Jenner, and the fully, ah, “intact” male “transitioners” who have been slaughtering female competitors in amateur swimming, wrestling, volleyball, and track and field. You know, like this person known as “Lia Thomas.”

The measure to establish the museum was defeated 216 to 204. Not a single Democrat voted for it, so chained is the party to radical LGBTQ propaganda.

Amazing. Amazing. The fact that most women still support a party that is so hypocritical regarding women’s welfare and rights—this is the party, remember, who made serial sexual predator Bill Clinton the keynote speaker at its national convention proclaiming the “Year of the Woman”!— is as incomprehensible as the fact that so many American Jews still vote for the party that increasing supports Hamas.

In fact, irony and hypocrisy are everywhere in this vote. The Axis of Unethical Conduct (“the resistance,” Democrats and the news media) like to say that Congressional Republicans refuse to swerve from the MAGA script, but the GOP virtually never gets 100% agreement. Every House Democrat, however, wants to see a Women’s History Museum that has a special exhibit honoring this recent Democratic administration official:

How “inclusive.”

Because the proposed museum wouldn’t be pandering to anomalies like Admiral Rachel Levine and the former cute-as-a-bunny actress playing Achilles in the new Odyssey film…

…Democrats decided en masse that American women who were crucial to the founding and development of this nation despite being marginalized, abused and discriminated against shouldn’t have their fascinating and inspiring stories told at all. Their museum wouldn’t sufficiently validate the social pathogen causing parents to allow their children to be mutilated and sports to undermine the cause of female athletes after they fought so hard to compete, you see.

An earlier version of the bill was co-sponsored by 127 Democrats. Republicans on the House Administration Committee added new language to the bill last month to dedicate the museum to “preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women.”

As opposed to, you know, men who decided they were women, wanted to be regarded as women, or pretended to be women.

Republican New York Rep. Nicole Malliotakis resigned as vice chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus today in response to the Democrats’ ridiculous tantrum, being appropriately disgusted by the vote even though 20 Democrats on the caucus co-sponsored the bill. In a letter to the committee’s co-chairs, Malliotakis pointed to Democrats on the committee refusing to cross party lines on pieces of legislation.

“If not one Problem Solvers Democrat would vote for a straightforward measure to transfer federal land for a women’s history museum simply because it was amended through regular order, during the committee process, to ensure that only biological women are exhibited, then what can we actually rely on the Caucus’ Democrats to join us on? I therefore submit my resignation as vice chair and member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, effective immediately,” Malliotakis wrote.

Good for her.

[Incidentally, I am not unalterably opposed to a National LGBTQ Museum that includesaccomplished and significant trans individuals, if they ever stop killing people…]

I Wonder 1) What Will Be Done About This…Because Obviously It Cannot Stand, and 2) Whether I Should Wear A Bag Over My Head From Now On

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

The nine-page settlement agreement of President Trump’s unwinnable lawsuit against the I.R.S,, which already included an illegal tax-free provision, had that one-page coda. I wrote about it yesterday, but this is sinking in.

I feel like an idiot. Since 2016, I have tried hard to be fair to Donald Trump, to give him the presumption of good will and legitimacy all Presidents deserve, and indeed must have to function. I am certain that the attitudes of the Trump Deranged have been destructive, undemocratic, biased and irrational, but this latest development raises the strong possibility that they happened to be right.

A Democratic, progressive criminal defense attorney who believes, with so may of my friends and colleagues, that the President “Trump “has two, and only two, motivations: Self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment. He’s done nothing in his second term to suggest otherwise”—a starting point that I still believe is biased and based substantially on hate—writes today in part,

“Can Trump do this? Is any of this lawful and constitutional?….[T]his post hoc addendum to a “settlement agreement” that elevates the concept of collusion to its apex breaks ground never before molested. The idea of any past President doing something so audacious, so self-serving, so blatant, seems incredible. The public would never accept it. Perhaps the public still won’t, even if the MAGA faithful will. That remains to be seen, subject to the likelihood of the Democratic Party doing something to self-destruct and remind Americans why they elected Trump a second time despite knowing who he was. There is no ready answer as to what can be done about this…We are deep into virgin territory of graft, corruption and self-dealing, with little expectation of any governmental guardrail holding fast…And much as it’s hard to fathom what he could do that’s worse than this, it would be stunningly naive to believe that we’ve hit rock bottom.”

The rest of Scott Greenfield’s commentary is, as usual, marred by the typical hyperbole of a true-blue progressive and Trump hater, but in those words above I find nothing that I can reject. I regard the episode a betrayal of trust by everyone involved, especially the President, reckless, beyond rational defending, destructive to the nation, and politically stupid.

Now what?

Making Americans Dumber and More Ignorant Every Day: MSNow!

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Jonathan Turley quoted a gobsmacking statement from MSNow’s consistently ridiculous Katy Tur that is, I kid you not, too stupid to qualify for Unethical Quote of the Month.

Commenting on Speaker Mike Johnson’s evocation of natural rights at the “Rededicate 250” rally on the mall in Washington, DC., she said, “What about this passage from Mike Johnson declaring that our rights do not derive from government? They come from “you, our creator and heavenly father.” Is this him putting God over the Declaration of Independence?”

No, you moron, it is him correctly interpreting what Thomas Jefferson wrote about natural rights, the core of the American philosophy of liberty and individual determinism over government domination. The Declaration states without equivocation, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Who or what “The Creator” is was consistently left up to individual faith and judgment by the Founders, who often used neutral terms like “Providence” to describe the origins of life, humanity and the universe. Jefferson’s point, which of course statists like the Axis of Unethical Conduct and its mouthpieces like Tur want to ignore, is that certain rights accrue in a just society to an individual automatically, and government cannot ethically or morally take those rights away. To maintain that such rights have to be granted by the government is to declare humanity unacceptably dependent on the power and will of others. The Declaration, Constitution and the Bill of Rights explain what the government can’t do.

How can someone who doesn’t understand this—because they never learned it, presumably—get to be a network news host? It’s horrifying. Similarly horrified by Tur’s ignorance, Jonathan Turley wrote today,

“The Revolution was fought over natural rights that belonged to colonists as human beings, bestowed by God and defended by the American Revolution. The Constitution created a system that guaranteed the protection of those rights contained in the Declaration of Independence.Speaker Johnson was speaking directly to the foundation of this Republic in reaffirming his faith in natural rights. Of course, the rejection of natural rights in academia and politics is consistent with the view that our rights evolve with a “living Constitution.” What the government giveth, the government may taketh away. The debate reflected in Tur’s comments could not be more timely or elemental on our 250th anniversary. We must again decide not just who we were then but who we are now as Americans. There are many who want to decouple our system from natural rights as they “reimagine” American democracy and “trash” the American Constitution.”

No wonder so many Americans are gulled by the Democrats’ cynical claim to be “protecting democracy.” They don’t know what American democracy is.

More on the President’s Unethical and Collusive $1.8 Billion IRS ‘Slush Fund’ Settlement 

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Or in other words,

If you can process this whole astounding ethics debacle and come out anything but but disgusted and disillusioned, you apparently are capable of rationalizing anything.

Hint: This is not a good thing.

In this post, I wrote about the gob-smacking, unprecedented settlement of President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over the leaking of his tax returns. My conclusion yesterday: “[T]his deal stinks, and should be challenged ethically if not legally. The whole Justice Department and the Treasury Department too had irresolvable conflicts, and should not have been allowed to make a settlement with their own boss.”

I learned of this revolting development two days ago, when a Trump Deranged relative asked me why my ethicist head wasn’t exploding over “Trump’s corrupt deal with the IRS that gave him a billion dollars to pay his militia, the J-6 rioters.” I had no idea what she was talking about. See, she only watches MSNow for news, and of course they were all over the story, as were all the Axis news platforms. The last few days I have been less than diligent in my bi-partisan news searches, mostly checking websites. However, that potentially exaggerated description of what two Executive cabinet departments and their employees who Trump can fire at will agreed to in settlement of a lawsuit that almost certainly would have been tossed by any judge who could beat Justice Jackson in Scrabble turned out to be shockingly accurate.

Now we are learning that the deal is even worse than it first appeared to be. This account is straight from Politico. I will not make a habit of the lazy Instapundit-Althouse blogging practice of posting a long quote or article and asking readers, “What do you think?”, but the ethics horror here is pretty straightforward, and I would just be rewording the item unnecessarily:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Dunces: The Congressional Black Caucus (As Usual)

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

I checked to see if Ethics Alarms has ever had a post about the Congressional Black Caucus, and there have been many, that didn’t indicate an an unethical culture embedded in the group like a tic.

No.

So I suppose the recent example shows that at very least, the CBC is consistent.

For over six years now, the NCAA and other collegiate sports organizations have been asking for Congress to reform college sports, which has been confused and chaotic since schools were told that they had to treat college athletes like mercenaries rather than students. The SCORE ACT is sorta kinda such legislation, and was was supposed to come up for a vote in the House of Representatives this week but was pulled from the floor at the last minute.

A few hours before the vote was again postponed indefinitely, the bill slammed into a roadblock when the Congressional Black Caucus and its 54 voting members in the House announced unanimous opposition to the SCORE Act, not because of anything the bill contained or ignored. The CBC announced that it would oppose the law until the SEC, ACC, and NCAA started protesting state gerrymandering and redistricting that didn’t benefit black Democrats. In other words, the CDC is practicing extortion. It is telling sports organizations that they must endorse the “good discrimination” against whites that the Supreme Court just declared illegal and unconstitutional (because, you know, it is), and if they don’t, well, the CBC will just refuse to vote for laws that have nothing to do with race, redistricting, sports or college. Neener neener!

Pages: 1 2

Sen. Cassidy Loses His Primary In Louisiana As He Deserved To…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy missed the runoff in the state’s GOP Senate primary last night, finishing third. This means his tenure as U.S. Senator will end in 2027.

Well, good. Cassidy voted to convict President Donald Trump after he was impeached by the Democrat-controlled House in a purely partisan abuse of the impeachment process. Emulating Liz Cheney is not a good look for a Republican Senator.

Or anyone, really.

In 2021, Cassidy joined Democrats and a small band of bitter anti-Trump Republicans in voting to convict Trump after his second impeachment trial. Trump had called Cassidy a “disloyal disaster” and warned Louisiana voters that the senator was “BAD FOR LOUISIANA.” Well, convicting Trump would have definitely been bad for the nation, the stability of our government, and the institution of the Presidency. The second impeachment, properly mocked as the “snap impeachment” by Prof. Jonathan Turley, occurred without thorough House hearings, witnesses and an investigation. It was not designed to remove a rogue President, because Trump had already lost his re-election bid. The case that the riot at the Capitol was an “insurrection” was always legal nonsense, and the accusation that President Trump was somehow an accessory to the criminal acts of the drunk and stupid rioters never made sense.

I am pretty certain that the dual abuse of the impeachment process by the Democrats has effectively killed the device as a necessary fail-safe on Presidential misconduct. Now impeachment has been reduced to a cheap weapon of political warfare, and Cassidy was willing to cross party lines to endorse what was a Constitutional debacle. Never mind loyalty…the problem with voting for an unjust impeachment of one’s own party’s POTUS isn’t a lack of loyalty, it is an excess of stupidity, judgement, and responsibility.

Good riddance.

So NOW the Climate Change-Hyping “Experts” Admit That Their Fear-Mongering Models Were Garbage!

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment
GUEST POST BY RYAN HARKINS

[From your host: I know the headline and graphic is my style and not Ryan’s. The valuable commentary below came out of a thread on the last Open Forum. I decided that it was worthy of a stand-alone guest post, especially since I should have written pretty much the same post when this news was first reported. Also, with this post I am officially Christening “The Climate Change Hysteria Ethics Train Wreck.” I should have done it years ago. JM]

I’m seeing some news that the IPCC (the International Panel on Climate Change) has rejected the RCP8.5 model as pretty much an impossible scenario. What is significant about this is how much research and how many policies were based on this scenario. With the IPCC actually stating that RCP8.5 is simply not plausible, the foundation for so much of the climate change hysteria has been ripped away.

To provide a little more detail, RCP8.5 is one of thousands of different models (computer simulations) trying to predict the impact of human activity on climate change up to the year 2100. These models try to take into account factors like human population growth, adoption or rolling back of climate policies, differing degrees of climate forcing due to carbon dioxide (because the science is definitely NOT settled on how much forcing CO2 actually contributes), and a host of other factors. RCP8.5 has always been one of the most extreme models, predicting an increase of 8.5 W/m^2 by 2100. There are scores of other models that are far more modest in their projections, and certainly observed data has favored models that project something closer to 3.4 W/m^2, though even those are diverging from observed data as time goes on.

The upshot, though, is the sheer scope of how much of the world’s climate policies are based on RCP8.5. From this article, we have

“Why this matters: these scenarios live in policy. The now-implausible upper-end scenarios — RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 — are not just academic constructs used in esoteric research. They are embedded in the policies and regulations of most of the world’s largest economies, found across the world’s most important multilateral institutions, and used in the climate stress tests that govern hundreds of billions of dollars in bank capital. National climate impact assessments in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the Netherlands all use RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 as a reference scenario. The Network for Greening the Financial System framework, used by more than 140 central banks, has utilized a “Hot House World” scenario calibrated to RCP8.5 physical risk into the bank stress tests run by the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Banque de France, and the US Federal Reserve. The World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal, which provides the climate diagnostics that feed into the Country Climate and Development Reports for more than 100 client countries, defaults to SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0.”

We have trillions of dollars worldwide tied into climate policies. Europe is practically destroying itself trying to achieve Net Zero targets. Industries are dying, people are facing energy insecurity, prices are skyrocketing, and the entire continent is growing in unrest over the devastation to livelihoods. All this comes from countries making policies based on a model that people have warned for years is unrealistic. But the good news is at least with the IPCC ruling the scenario implausible, there is no defense for anyone to keep using those high-end scenarios to craft policy.

Sadly, I’ll bet few policies are actually updated to reflect this ruling.

An Unpleasant Reminder Of Why Ethics Alarms Holds That Editorial Cartoons Are Unethical (and Outdated) [Revised]

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

This:

[The revision referred to in the headline is that I changed the phrase “political cartoon” to “editorial cartoon” throughout the essay. My fault: that was what I meant and still mean when I use the term “political cartoon.” Obviously that confused people: I apologize. “Doonsberry” is a political cartoon; so were “Pogo” and “Li’l Abner.” They were cartoons about politics, and their primary purpose was to amuse. Editorial cartoons, like the one above, are supposed to be treated seriously, like editorials. That’s what this post is condemning. I’m an idiot for not realizaing I was confusing the issue.]

As I wrote in 2017, it’s time, long past time, really, for editorial cartoons to be sent to the ash heap of history.

To clear up any confusion: I’m not a huge fan of memes, but I’m warming up to them a little because they are unequivocally graphic jokes, intended to be outrageous, satirical, maybe offensive but always funny. Editorial cartoons evolved as artistic punditry; they might use humor, but their ultimate goal was to make serious, trenchant, ideally witty observations on the political scene while appearing in newspaper editorial pages.

With very, very, very few exceptions, editorial cartoonists are artists who are partisan one-trick ponies.They are neither as smart or as analytical as they think they are. The template for these would be Herb Block, the mysteriously acclaimed Washington Post editorial cartoonist, who thought he was being clever by always drawing businessmen with huge bellies and smoking long cigars, or making Richard Nixon look like an axe-murderer.

That shameless cartoon above was posted with approval by an old friend of mine, a history professor at an elite college. To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement. How many things are wrong with that thing? The mind boggles. The juxtaposition of the flag-raising over Iwo Jima and the majority opinion in Louisiana v. Callais makes no sense. The implication that the long-needed judicial holding that a 60 year old law crafted to deal with conditions in the Southern states in 1965 no longer is relevant to those states in the 21st century is somehow pushing the nation back 160 years is temporally, historically, factually and legally gibberish. True, it is a pictorial equivalent of the Democrat’s House leader’s meltdown, as the ridiculous Hakeem Jeffries ranted, “Because we know this unprecedented assault on black political representation, the likes of which we have not seen since the Jim Crow era, the ghost of the Confederacy has afflicted the United States Supreme Court majority and is invading and haunting the nation right now! ” That, however was, or should be, an embarrassment to all Democrats and black Americans with a 6th grade education.

Pages: 1 2