Government & Politics

Ethical Quotes of the Week: Medal of Honor Recipients Will Swenson and Matt Williams

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Her face (as usual when she isn’t interviewing a Democrat or an Axis ally) etched with pain. ABC’s awful Margaret Brennan dragged out the “Everything is Terrible Under President Trump” Big Lie and asked two Congressional Medal of Honor recipients a “When did you stop beating your wife?”-style question. “What specifically makes you optimistic? Because this country, at times, can feel dark, these days, there’s a lot of darkness. What makes you feel optimistic?,” she asked.

You see the trick? She framed the question so that it would mean “I’m optimistic despite how terrible things are with this Fascist President.” But Will Swenson, on the right, didn’t fall into her trap. He answered,

“Well, ultimately, because we’re in Washington, D.C., and everything revolves around politics, we have to remember that politics aren’t everything. American lives continue on. Children are born, children go to school. Lives are achieved. Dreams are achieved. This country is a great place. It’s not politics. It’s not just what’s the news bites coming off of media. Ultimately, we continue forward as a country, continually imperfect, continually evolving forward, always trying to achieve a more perfect union. That’s what’s important to remember, what we can achieve aspirationally. No other place in history, time or on this planet have ever gotten to where we are today. We need to be proud of that, and we need to remember that is what we stay focused on, what we can be.”

Then Brennan, disappointed with the answer, tried to reframe it to meet her agenda, saying, “What we can be, and the promise of it….” Ah. So you agree there’s nothing NOW to feel good about, but maybe things will get better! She is scum. When Brennan asked the same question to Matt Williams (on the left) he also plowed under her “gotcha!” attempt, saying,

“You know, I agree with Will. I think, you know, it’s- it’s so important to remember who we are as a country, and take an opportunity to celebrate that, and think about all the- the challenges that we’ve overcome, how far we’ve actually come. You know, I think if you- if you frame it that way, you think very deeply about our trials and tribulations from beginning to today, we’ve made tremendous strides. Our country is, you know, we’re a super- global superpower. Our economy is doing well. All those things are great. And- and take politics aside out of this whole conversation. Just talk about our communities, that- that we live in, and the people that you surround yourself with, and your families, and the opportunity to be free and, you know, choose what school you go to, and where you want to live and do what you want to do, and what career path you go down or don’t if you want to, you know, I mean, there’s so much to be positive about. And I think the opportunity to celebrate America’s 250th birthday, you know, over the course of this next year is- is amazing. There’s so many great places to visit. You know, the National Mall is going to be full of Americana. And what we’re going to- celebrating ourselves, which I think we should take the time to do. I think it’s very important. You know, across the country, you know something we’re very passionate about at the National Medal of Honor Museum in Arlington, Texas, is a phenomenal beacon that stands to talk about and house our, not only our story, the story of the Medal, and what the Medal represents itself. And I would challenge people to go there and celebrate our history as well. You know, it’s so important. There’s so many great things to go do and great things to visit and don’t just take part in it, because it’s something to do on a weekend, right? Think about why you’re doing it, and when you’re there in the crowds and you’re enjoying yourself, and you’re taking your family to go talk about our country and celebrate our country, actually celebrate it. Be grateful for what you’ve got and the opportunity that was provided for you. If you do that, I don’t see how you can’t be optimistic about our future.”

Disappointed that her “dark times” leading question failed, Brennan ended the interview.

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

Oh Look, Pope Leo Presumes To Tell Us What To Do With A.I.! Ethics Observations, Part II

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

The summary of the Pope Leo’s open letter to “all people of good will” is at Part I, along with a link to the whole 42,000 word opus. News reports on the document can be read here, here and here.

1. The document appears to begin, as we would expect, from the basic socialist/Communist/progressive bias the Catholic Church has always displayed, which includes suspicion and contempt for capitalism. In the text, Pope Leo says that while “technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity,” he added that “the pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs.” The encyclical doesn’t resolve the obvious conflict that has always existed in that perspective: technology ideally improves the quality of life for humanity, saves resources and redistributes them elsewhere, and often reduces the costs of goods and services making them more affordable to all. One of my favorite inventors, Walter Hunt (inventor of the safety pin), invented the first practical sewing machine but didn’t patent or market it because he was certain that it would put seamstresses out of work. So Elias Howe patented the sewing machine instead. Were more jobs lost or created by the invention? I have no idea. This has been the inevitable sequence with new technology throughout human history: its ultimate impact is usually impossible to predict.

Ethics Lesson: Trying to develop rules and laws limiting the uses of emerging technology is stifling as well as futile, and foolish to boot.

2. A Pope using the Biblical fable of the Tower of Babel as his primary analogy to justify limiting the use of artificial intelligence is signature significance that makes me, for one, tend to roll my eyes at the entire document. That’s a story about the Old Testament God finding sinful the aspirations of mankind and sabotaging an effort by humans to cooperate in creating something ambitious and unprecedented. The encyclical demands acceptance of human limits, while science, capitalism and American individualism set no limits on human advancement. The Pope seems to be saying the equivalent of “If God had meant for us to fly, he would have given us wings.”

Pages: 1 2

Oh Look, Pope Leo Presumes To Tell Us What To Do With A.I.! Ethics Observations, Part I: The Text

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

The big news this morning is that Pope Leo XIV issued an A.I encyclical titled “Magnifica Humanitas,” or “Magnificent Humanity,” his first such document. These things are supposed to impart authoritative teachings on moral or social challenges, but fall short of the legal status of a papal bull, which is a formal declaration of an article of faith or moral law. Catholics are supposed to use encyclicals to guide their lifestyles and choices. You know, like devout Catholic Joe Biden believing abortion is murder while supporting the practice so Democrats won’t lose the the single female vote.

I started to read the thing, which is over 200 pages, and officially feel bad about giving up 25% through, especially since I routinely criticize people who attack court decisions without reading them. Do I trust the various reporters and pundits who are supposed to summarize and explain the document? No. However, unlike court decisions, which I am accustomed to reading and have the experience and training to understand, a Pope’s declaration about how we should work with new technology has as much relevance to a non religious question as his opinion on one of the legal controversies settled by a Supreme Court decision: none whatsoever. He is not, by any framework, an expert on technology. He has a bias, indeed many biases, that he has already made clear, and the Pope’s view on A.I. is exactly as valuable as the opinion of of one of my next door neighbors, and maybe not as well informed.

The document has some significance because it will doubtless be used as an appeal of to authority is future debates over A.I. policy even though it shouldn’t be.

Ironically, one of my first substantive uses of A.I. is to ask one of the things to summarize “Magnifica Humanitas.” The result is below, so those of you who are not speed readers or who actually have lives so spending the time necessary to read what the Pope has wrought isn’t practical can prepare for the Ethics Alarms reaction to come. I suppose there is always the possibility that the bot read it, thought “Oh-oh!” and slanted its summary to advance its own welfare and evil plans…

Anyway, here is the summary, which is presumably objective, but who knows? I’ll be back with ethical observations in Part 2. (I couldn’t figure out how to get rid of the hanging letters in some of the sentence breaks without WordPress getting funky. I’m sorry.)

Pages: 1 2

Another “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Smoking Gun, As If We Needed Any More…

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

This exchange…

Ethics villain, Jim Acosta eventually quit CNN in a snit because it began showing a little bit of balance regarding President Trump, but how was such a partisan, biased Axis hack allowed to be CNN’s White House correspondent in the first place? The guy is an A1 Choice USDA -certified ethics villain and, incidentally, an asshole.

Cheer-leading for Colbert is signature significance, to begin with. Gutfield is correct on the facts: it has been verified repeatedly that CBS was losing millions on Colbert.

A swollen staff is part of the reason; the other reason is that Colbert deliberately alienated half the country.

Acosta then defaults to the Axis narrative that President Trump got Colbert cancelled. It’s a lie, flat out. “Dear Leader” is a sarcastic name used by the Trump Deranged. This Axis “advocacy journalist” was out to trash President Trump from the moment he was elected,

Then Acosta privets to the “poor fired employees” guilt trip. They lost their jobs because the show they were working for was losing money! It happens to the best of us (and me, several times). That’s how business works in the U.S. Too bad this isn’t the socialist worker’s paradise Acosta and his fellow travelers dream about. And Gutfield didn’t celebrate the staff losing their jobs anyway. He stated that the staff was ridiculously huge, which it was.

[I will link to Jim Acosta’s ugly EA dossier when WordPress is functioning better, which it currently is not, and its “Happiness Engineers” (Yuck!) have been useless.]

He’s an Ethics Villain. When people complain about Trump calling the news media the “enemy of the people,” Jim Acosta is Exhibit A in the President’s defense.

Note: Exhibit B could be Dana Milbank, whom the Washington Post finally jettisoned as one of its partisan columnists after years of Axis hackery. Today on ABC he cited as one of the three reasons Kamala Harris lost the election was “the backlash against a black woman being the Democratic nominee.” Just thinking that, never mind saying it in public, disqualifies anyone as a serious and trustworthy analyst. Milbank was a political reporter and columnist for the Washington Post for 25 years.

On Trying To See Both Sides Of The Illegal Immigration Issue…

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments
A Guest Post by Ryan Harkins

[This guest post’s origin was the most recent Open Forum. Personally, I don’t believe there is a rational, ethical, realistic “other side” to the issue. As I wrote in a longer response to Ryan that you can read here, “the issue of illegal immigration is quite simple. It’s against the law. It’s against the law because open borders to a country like the US is literally national suicide…The immigration laws we have, flawed or not, have to be enforced uniformly and strictly.”—JM]

My wife and I have been debating the illegal immigration issue on and off for a while now, and part of the reason we keep returning to ethics of the illegal immigration issue is the fact that so many in leadership in the Catholic Church have been very critical of Trump’s deportation efforts.  As faithful Catholics, we believe we need to listen when our bishops speak.  It doesn’t mean we mindlessly agree, but in cases where the bishops take a position we initially oppose, it is incumbent upon us to study and ponder the issue as thoroughly as we can before making any objections.  

To that end, my wife and I are trying to be as open as we possibly can regarding the issue of how to manage people who are in our country and in our local communities illegally.  I have told her that I think the best way to understand a viewpoint with which we disagree is to argue from that viewpoint and to steelman its arguments as best we can.  Interestingly enough, my wife and I do highlight differing aspects of why we have problems with illegal immigration.  I focus very heavily on the human trafficking issue.  She focuses very heavily on the financial injustices the illegal immigration causes. 

From the trafficking standpoint, I think that is it clear that a lot of illegal immigrants end up practically as slave labor, which has largely been overlooked because it seems like it keeps prices down in the supermarket.  But far more devastating is the sex trafficking which never seems to get the attention it deserves, especially when so many of these “lost and displaced children” end up serving the debauched desires of affluent Americans who believe they can continue their predations because “Who would dare contact the authorities?”. 

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quote of the Week: “Victory Girls”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

“So here we are … where prominent Democrats across the country spanning politicians, media, academia and even celebrities … have been overtly anti-Semitic for a number of years, but NOW we are supposed to believe Jeffries claiming Galindo crossed a line? “Free Palestine” agitators can stalk and beat-up Jewish students with no repercussions but Galindo wanting to imprison “American Zionists” is a bridge too far?…Democrats in Texas voted for her in enough numbers to put her in the runoff. You just don’t like that she might lose the election over her beliefs. You can’t Jedi Mind Trick yourself out of your party’s Nazi problem.”

—Victory Girls blogger Darleen Clark, correctly noting the gaslighting and hypocrisy of Democratic Party leaders pretending to erupt in horror after Texas Democratic congressional candidate Maureen Galindo openly talked about prison camps for “American Zionists” and “castration processing centers” as if she were the first prominent member of their party to advocate anti-Jewish, anti-Israel positions and spit anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Apparently Democrats are worried that too many voters might finally realize what their party has become. As I mentioned in the previous post,  “recent polls, show that two-thirds of Democrats (67%) now support Palestinians over Israel, with only 17% being on the side of the nation and the population Hamas wants to push into the sea and off the map.” Galindo is a mainstream Democrat now, and was appealing to the base. Jeffries, who posted this…

is being deliberately deceitful, but as my Dad used to say in such situations, “What else is new?” Clark correctly notes that Jeffries didn’t mention that he was referring to a Democrat, and even (Aren’t these people disgusting?) implies that she is a Republican! Now here is AOC, herself anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, doing the same thing in response to Galindo’s plans:

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.