Government & Politics

Unethical Quote of the Week: “Good Illegal Immigrant”Rahel Negassi

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

“I didn’t do anything wrong,” she told him. “The only thing I’ve done is that I am Eritrean.”

—-Illegal Eritrean immigrant Rahel Negassito to her son, in the latest “Feel badly for illegal immigrants who finally get what they deserve” feature by the New York Times.

Rahel looks smug and defiant in the photo, as indeed she is. She did nothing wrong, but the (revoltingly) sympathetic story of her problems relocating to Canada from the U.S., where she has been residing illegally for 20 years, reports that she got into the country by

  • “…paying a smuggler who eventually got her to Britain, where she bought a fake British passport” to get her into the U.S.
  • …getting caught by ICE when the passport was recognized as fake
  • …being released after her application as a refugee was rejected, as a “paroled undocumented migrant.” 
  • ….living with her citizen sister for 20 years, counting on America’s slack and, for most of the period, law-ignoring immigration process to protect her.

Then as the story tells us, cruel Donald Trump was elected and set out to fulfill his campaign promise to clear as many illegal immigrants out of the U.S. as possible. A gift link is here.

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations on “Seditious” Video’s Unethical Aftermath

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

The Pentagon has announced that it is investigating Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona regarding possible breaches of military law when the former Navy pilot joined other Democrats in the recent video calling for troops to defy “illegal orders.” A federal law allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the Secretary of War for possible courts martial. Kelly’s statements in the video may have interfered with the “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces…A thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures,” the statement said.

Ethics Alarms already explained what was unethical about the video. It was a cheap political stunt, unethically implying that what had not occurred and will not occur had occurred or was in danger of occurring. It was clever, Machiavellian and, as the late Harry Reid would say, “It worked!” The stunt lured Trump into behaving like an ass, overstating the issues involved, and giving the Axis more metaphorical sticks to beat him with. Even with the admissions by some of Kelly’s co-conspirators that they didn’t know of any illegal orders by Trump that justified the “public service announcement,” it still was a net public relations loss for the President, who doesn’t need any more of them. Now Pete Hegseth is joining the botch. Terrific.

Observations:
1. Haven’t Republicans heard of the Streisand Effect? Making such a fuss over the video is just guaranteeing that it stays in the news, along with the typically biased and inflammatory news coverage, like “Trump calls for EXECUTION of members of Congress!” Hegseth’s investigation could be justified, but with an irresponsible and partisan news media, there is no chance, none, that the public will understand the issues involved. With those as the conditions that prevail, the announcement of the investigation is incompetent.

Continue reading →

KABOOM! I Never Thought We’d See a U.S. President (Or Senator, or Governor, or Judge) Stoop To This…

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

Do I really have to explain what’s unethical about this?

I hope not.

It’s something special, all right. Talk about shattering “norms.” Also good taste, the respect for the office, the line between celebrity and public service, and… well, you fill in the rest.

I’ll be in my bathroom, throwing up.

Ethics Dunces: 98 Democratic Party House Members

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

One would think that a Congressional resolution calling for the condemnation of communism and socialism would be an easy one to vote for, but one would be wrong. Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), the daughter of Cuban refugees, introduced a non-binding resolution to Congress this past week called “Denouncing the horrors of socialism.” Most of the historical villains referenced in the resolution —Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and Nicolás Maduro—were Communists. Nevertheless, not only did 100 members of the Democratic Party vote against a statement of principles that flows directly from our founding documents and core values (Jefferson wrote, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it,” and Madison added that it “is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest…), they were confident enough of the effectiveness their party’s pro-socialist propaganda to go on the record as opposing that statement. All the worst villains are there: the “Squad,” Pelosi, Jaimie Raskin, Maxine Waters.

The number of Democrats unwilling to condemn socialism, and therefore its nasty offspring communism, was even more damning: in addition to the 98 naysayers, two Democrats voted “present” and 47 weenies refuse to vote at all.

Democrats are now telling us exactly who they are and what their agenda is.

There Is Still A Chance For Justice In the Sacrifice of Officer Derek Chauvin…

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

When I posted on the shameful conviction of Officer Derek Chauvin in 2023 after trail that was biased from the start to its finsih, I led off with that climactic song from the musical “1776.” It seemed to me then that nobody did care, at least, not enough people in our corrupted and politicized justice system. I wrote in part,

“That the conviction of Derek Chauvin for murder was a frightening political act that trampled multiple constitutional rights of a single hated ex-cop (and later his three fellow police officers at the scene) has been increasingly undeniable. The justice system, the news media, the political system and the nation as a whole have apparently decided that Chauvin isn’t worth the effort to provide him with the basic rights and fair treatment that has been accorded to scores of murderers and thieves, and that is supposed to be the birthright of every citizen regardless of class, color or character.

“The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision that I have to believe was dictated by public relations rather than law or justice, recently turned down Chauvin’s last ditch appeal, based on his claim that he was denied his right to a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and public safety concerns in the event of an acquittal. Of course he was. Public figures had declared him guilty during the trial. A mass outbreak of race-based rioting (and “mostly peaceful” demonstrations) across the country had been triggered by Floyd’s death, though no evidence was ever offered at trial that Chauvin was motivated by racism. The specter of the Rodney King riots that erupted in L.A. after the police accused in his beating were acquitted had to loom large in the jury’s minds, as well as the likelihood of potential alienation from their friends, families and colleagues if they allowed an arch villain, in the already clear verdict of the media and the mob, to escape mob justice….He is a convenient sacrifice to racial guilt among whites and aspiring political power among blacks. Facts are irrelevant.”

It was and is a horrifying failure of our justice system, and a horrifying example of how political violence can succeed. Now a new filing in the case raises hope again that Chauvin, who has been nearly murdered in prison, may yet be exonerated. If, as the document and its supporting documentation claims, the prosecution withheld important evidence from the defense and the jury, then Chauvin was denied due process even beyond the due process we saw him be denied in his first trial. That would mandate throwing out the verdict and giving him a new trial, one would hope in a jurisdiction not as incapable of sanity as Minneapolis.

Here is a summary:

Continue reading →

November 22, 1963

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Sixty-two years ago I was up unusually late in my Arlington, Massachusetts home as my parents, my younger sister and I watched the coverage of that day’s nation-shattering event, the assassination, in Dallas, of President John F. Kennedy.

Like everyone else in my generation, much of that day is vivid in my memory, literally as if it were yesterday. My friend Paul Connolly and I were were walking home a little after 3:00 from Junior High West when Charlene Lamberis, a classmate, shouted out of her mother’s car as they passed us on the street, “The President has been shot! The President has been shot!” I had recently lost the election for president of the 8th grade, so my mind was still on my rival. I turned to Paul and said, “Who would want to shoot Marty Toczylowski?” (Marty is alive, well, and thriving today as an executive recruiter. I just checked.) Paul set me straight on what Charlene was referring to, and he pulled out his transistor radio. Soon a solemn voice announced that the President of the United States was dead, and that they would return to the station’s regular programming, whereupon wildly cheerful country fiddle music took over. It was so inappropriate we both couldn’t help laughing.

My friend came home with me and joined my mother, who was already in front of our old Capehart black-and-white TV console. TV news had never covered anything this important; all three networks and PBS were hustling trying to find new angles, scoops and people to interview. I’ll never forget that Paul, who was a brilliant kid, turned to me and said, with his face like a death mask, “Richard Nixon will be the next President.” It took five years and many twists and turns including a self-mocking cameo on “Rowen and Martin’s Laugh-in” (“Sock it to me?”), but Tricky Dick indeed was indeed the next President after Lyndon Johnson, sworn in as POTUS that day.

Continue reading →

Incompetent Elected Official and Ethics Dunce (But You Knew That, I Hope): Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene amazed Washington, D.C last night when she announced that she will resign from Congress after the first of the year, refusing to meet her obligations to the (dumb) voters who elected her and leaving them without a voice in Congress—an obnoxious and foolish voice, true, but still—for months.

As is often the case with the ethically-challenged, Taylor-Greene has managed to exceed the worst expectations of her. She has been a disgrace; now she is further disgracing herself and doing so with the vacant stare of the IQ-deficient and the phony smile of the bad liar. Like other recently departed creeps (George Santos, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Matt Gaetz) elected by exactly the kinds of voters the Founders were worried about when they decided to try the republic thingy, Taylor-Greene (henceforth just “Green” because I resent having to spend any more time typing her name that I have to) will leave Congress and our government a better place by leaving them.

Continue reading →

No, Rachel Maddow Did Not Demonstrate a Sudden Attack of Decency and Bi-Partisanship By Attending Dick Cheney’s Funeral

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Oh come on. Does anyone really believe this? Seriously?

Dishonest and frighteningly biased like the paper he works for, New York Times pundit Peter Baker actually had the gall to post this on “X”:

To which Sidney Wang quickly responded,

“Changed” since when? Maddow has been allied with the Trump-hating Cheneys and Bushes since at least 2015.

Maddow was invited to Chaney’s funeral, a gathering one wag described as a meeting of the “I Hate Trump” club, by Liz Cheney, who became a favorite of MSNBC’s talking heads once she voted for the second of Nancy Pelosi’s partisan impeachments against President Trump and was complicit in the rigged Star Chamber hearings on the so-called J-6 riots. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is an ancient proverb that has turned up in many cultures and in the mouths of many philosophers since the dawn of speech. It is simple Cognitive Dissonance Scale reality. Glenn Greenwald gets it, but then do Elmo and the cast of “Jackass!”, I bet:

It isn’t Maddow’s presence at the funeral but the absence of President Trump and Vice-President Vance that shows the collapse of professionalism, mutual respect, decency and decorum in today’s politics. Neither were invited to attend. Trump recklessly (and, as I have written before, stupidly) insulted the Bush-Cheney political machine when he was running for President in 2016, and it wreaked its revenge by abandoning the supposed conservative principles its members stood for to become bitter and fanatic NeverTrumpers. Dick Cheney and his daughter endorsed Kamala Harris, proving that personal vendettas were more important to them than the welfare of the nation. 

If Maddow’s smirking presence at the funeral showed how “politics have changed in America,”it only demonstrated that they have become more petty and and vicious, with its institutions being weakened and the public trust in its motives justly reduced to vapors.

WaPo: “Republican Overseeing Alamo Renovation Ousted After ‘Woke’ Social Media Post” Ethics Alarms: “Better Safe Than Sorry.”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

I know, I know: Ethics Alarms’ annual “Remember the Alamo!’ posts usually don’t start until February. But an important Alamo story with ethics lessons reaching beyond the legendary Texas battle is in the news, and attention should be paid.

Kate Rogers had been leading the $550 million renovation of the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick reviewed a copy of her 2023 PhD dissertation on museums affecting history is taught in schools. “Personally, I would love to see the Alamo become a beacon for historical reconciliation and a place that brings people together versus tearing them apart, but politically that may not be possible at this time,” her dissertation stated. Patrick asked her to resign as CEO of the Alamo Trust based on that sentiment, and Rogers refused. declined. The next day, Patrick publicly called for her resignation. This time, Rogers complied.

This week, Rogers sued, alleging wrongful termination. The theory: forcing her to resign for what she wrote in her dissertation was a violation of her free speech rights. The dissertation wasn’t the whole story, however. On her watch, a social media post from the Alamo Trust had prompted this letter…

Continue reading →

Regarding That “Seditious” Democrat Video…

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Who’s kidding whom?

You know that six former members of the military who by chance happened to be Democrats didn’t just wake up one morning and decide to “remind” members of the military that they are not supposed to obey “illegal orders.” They know that: every member of the military is taught the principle, though few have the fortitude to actually defy a superior officer on that basis. (My father did it at least three times during World War II while in the infantry.) This fake public service message or whatever you’d like to call it was a cheap, deceitful, underhanded way of advancing the Democratic Party’s “autocrat”/”threat to democracy”/”end elections” narrative to smear President Trump while exacerbating the brain fever of Trump Derangement Victims. Oh, it’s clever in the same diabolical way the “It’s OK to be white!” signs were, or the whole Black Lives Matter scam, or “Let’s Go Brandon!” Wink-wink. nudge-nudge, you get what we really mean, don’t you?

Continue reading →