Government & Politics

Why Would Anyone, Ever Believe Bill Clinton When He Says Something Like…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

…”But even with 20/20 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me pause.”

He said that in his opening statement to the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee before being grilled about his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein.

Hilarious!

Deceit is Bill Clinton’s native tongue, and he is fluent and skilled at it. This is a man who defended himself against allegation regarding Monica Lewinski saying he was never “alone” with the comely intern on the grounds that no one is alone when he is with someone. Bill declared that he never had “sex with that woman” because he held that getting blow-jobs wasn’t sex. He defended his deliberate misstatements to a grand jury by saying that he never lied, that he just wasn’t “helpful.” (It’s “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” and as a lawyer, he knows damn well that not being helpful means withholding the “whole truth.”) He lied under oath, as President, during the Paula Jones hearing, and had to give up his law license as a result.

That statement is so obviously meaningless coming from Clinton that it’s beneath his usual level of mendacity. ‘It didn’t ever give me pause’ ‘even now” spoken by a cold-eyed sociopath only means: “That stuff? That’s never given me pause. I just don’t care. Didn’t then, don’t now.” You can fill in the crude next line yourself. Bill Clinton has been a sexual predator his whole life, and has always escaped accountability. Why would Epstein surrounding Clinton with attractive, submissive, teenage girls give him pause?

If the House Republicans were going to shatter the “norm” of not calling former Presidents to testify, they at least could have justified it by calling one who could relay useful information in response to their questioning. Bill Clinton is smarter than any of them, and a masterful liar. His testimony was useless, except to prove that he’s still “got it.”

Incompetent Elected Official of the Week (If you don’t count all the others): Drunk Washington State Legislator Joe Fitzgibbon

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

This video brings back some bad memories as I head to the second anniversary of my wife’s sudden death. Grace battled alcoholism our whole marriage, and the careful, plodding, slightly slurred speech pattern you hear above from Rep. Fitzgibbon is exactly how she would speak when she was smashed and trying to hide it. Sober, she was quick-tongued and sparklingly articulate.

I feel sympathy for Fitzgibbon, but he has to resign, and so far doesn’t have the integrity to do it. Fortunately for him, he belongs to a side of the ideological spectrum that doesn’t believe in responsibility or accountability among their other ethical quirks.

Fitzgibbon, to his credit, at least issued an ethical apology for his disgraceful conduct, except for one teeny-tiny omission: there was no “therefore, today I tender my resignation as representative of the 34th District”:

Pages: 1 2

Unethical Image Of The Year

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

And signature significance.

Was the image manipulated? Of course: I don’t really care. The image perfectly illustrates the ugliness and un-American essence of Trump Derangement. These two representatives of foreign values and foreign entitlement embody the sickness that our inattention to maintaining core prioritizes in our domestic policies and democratic institutions has wrought.

Incompetent, Unethical Elected Official of the Month Who Wasn’t Behaving Like An Ass At The SOTU: Rep. Lauren Bobert (R-Co)

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

What an unprofessional, lowlife disgrace Bobert (above, being classy) is. She should be censored and kicked off of every committee, and with luck she’ll quit in a huff to team up with only slightly less objectionable ex-colleague Marjorie Taylor Green to participate in tag-team mud-wrestling competitions.

Hillary Clinton’s Jeffrey Epstein deposition was suspended after Rep. Boebert surreptitiously snapped a picture of Clinton and her attorneys as she addressed lawmakers about her relationship with Epstein. Boebert then leaked the photo to slimeball MAGA influencer Benny Johnson, who posted it on social media.

Hillary’s lawyers demanded that the proceedings be halted after the photograph began circulating on social media. It is strictly prohibited for legislators or witnesses to take pictures inside a closed-door congressional testimony. But Boebert, who has the maturity of a 14-year-old, the judgment of a brain-damaged puppy, and the professionalism of carnival geek did it anyway.

Be proud, Republicans.

Maybe 14 is giving her too much credit. She is a real, live, honest-to-goodness bimbo Congresswoman, and her presence in the Capitol is an insult to the nation, the public, and the Constitution. Also her sex, her species, family, order, phylum, and the galaxy. Her district’s voters should have their citizenship suspended and their district made an official territory of Haiti. They and lazy, ignorant Americans like them in both parties are the reason our political process is looking more an more like an episode of “The Jerry Springer Show.” A bad episode.

If public approval of Congress is anything but zero after this week, it will be more proof that Ben Franklin’s challenge to us to see if we could keep our republic is proving too difficult, not because of adversaries abroad, but because of cranial vacuums within.

Ethics Observations On That “Proud To Be An American” Chart

/ Jack Marshall / 45 Comments

Yes, as with all polls and surveys, one should be wary of this one; still, Gallup is as close to non-partisan as one can get in 2026, and the results seem consistent with what we have been observing for a long time.

And true, confirmation bias comes into play. However, what we saw with the Democrats in Congress refusing to enthusiastically applaud the U.S. Olympic champion hockey team certainly seemed significant, especially since one assumed that if nothing else, the party knows its base. The core Democratic base looks, sounds, and behaves as if it is hostile to American values, traditions and history. With such quacking and waddling going on, it would take an ingenious argument to maintain that this isn’t a metaphorical duck.

I was drawn to the chart, which has been around for several months, because an “X” pundit wrote, “What’s going on here?,” the threshold question for all ethics inquiries. So what is going on here?

This:

Pages: 1 2

Meanwhile, A Major Ethics Disgrace From The Other Side of the Aisle…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales, though he has managed not humiliate himself and his party on the House floor like so many Democrats last night, is a revolting representative of Congress for other reasons.

Gonzales apparently had an affair in 2025 with his former district staffer, Regina Santos-Aviles. She committed suicide by setting herself later that same year, on fire last September. The San Antonio Express-News obtained alleged text messages between Gonzales and Santos-Aviles in which he requested a “sexy pic” and asked about her “favorite” sexual position. “This is going too far boss,” Santos-Aviles replied.

Ya think? How hard is it for high elected officials, charged with being role models sufficiently convincingly to allow the public to trust that the republic isn’t in the hands of scoundrels, to avoid workplace misconduct for the length of a term in office? Apparently too hard, for creeps like Gonzales, and, of course, Bill Clinton. I hate to sound like a broken record, but there is no excuse for this.

The texts were revealed by Adrian Aviles, her widower. It seems that he was the likely cause of his wife’s self-inflicted death, for the police report report states that before she died of her burns, Santos-Aviles told an officer that she learned that her husband had been having an affair with her best friend, and because of that she poured gasoline on herself and set herself ablaze According to the report, a video shows Santos-Aviles walking into the backyard, pouring liquid from a gas canister on herself and lighting herself on fire. (Tangential question: who took the video?)

In torts there is a maxim that one takes his victim as he finds her. Perhaps the object of his forbidden affections was emotionally unstable and Gonzales complicating her already complicated life was the final metaphorical straw pushing her over the edge. In that case, he is still responsible, because there was no reason for him to harass her. Even if the Congressman’s affair was not a proximate cause of her death, and even if there was no affair but just the text messages, Gonzales is still a blight on Congress.

A growing number of Republican have called for Gonzales’ resignation, including South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert and Texas Rep. Brandon Gill. That’s nice, but nicer still would be if both parties could manage to find fewer creeps. lowlifes, morons and villains to present to voters, who obviously have the civic literacy of bread mold based on their choices.

Recent surveys show that Americans’ trust in their government institutions has never been lower. I guess the good news is that at least the public is paying some attention to the swill around them.

On The State of the Union Message

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

I haven’t done this before and may never do it again, but I found conservative podcaster Vice Dao’s assessment of Trump’s State of the Union Addresses pretty much spot-on, so I’m posting a lengthy section from his podcast.

Was last night a tipping point, a moment that history will show suddenly made the previous victims of the Axis of Unethical Conduct’s Big Lies, propaganda and acceptance of Trump Derangement as a justifiable attitude toward the elected President of the United States of America slap their collective foreheads at last exclaiming, “Wait, what have I been thinking? The Democratic Party is nuts! How can anyone in their right mind support such anti-American crackpots?” Time will tell. As Dao says, Democrats and the Axis media seem to be whistling past the graveyard now, giving the agreed-upon line that ‘yeah, Trump pleased his racist base because that’s who was watching, but State of the Unions never have any lasting impact, and that means this one won’t.‘

They hope. I wouldn’t be so sure of that, and they probably aren’t so sure themselves. Sure, Trump loaded up his speech with his usual hyperbole, fudged statistics and claims that this or that was the best, the greatest, the most wonderful ever, giving the New York Times and the rest plenty of opportunity to “factcheck” the speech and call Trump a liar. (The Times really and truly published a “factcheck” of Trump’s speech before he made it, apparently oblivious to how biased and unfair that looked.) Nobody is going to remember any of the usual drivel, which is indeed standard SOTU blather. What they will remember, because unless Republicans are even more incompetent than I already think they are, the GOP won’t let anyone forget it, is the two anti-American “Squad” members, Representatives Omar (who has said that she cares about Somalians more than Americans) and Tlaib (who is a Palestinian, anti-Semitic mole) screaming at the President from the sidelines, wearing “Fuck ICE” pins. The public will remember that not one Democrat had the sense to avoid falling into Trump’s well-laid trap, refusing to stand when he asked for an impromptu vote on whether they agreed that the duty of the government was to protect citizens rather than illegal immigrants.

“One of the great things about the State of the Union,” he said, “is how it gives Americans the chance to see clearly what their representatives really believe. Tonight, I’m inviting every legislator to join with my administration in reaffirming a fundamental principle. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support: The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”

No Democrats among those who chose not to boycott the event—how unifying of them!–stood. The entire Republican contingent stood and cheered. “With one maneuver,” conceded the Times today, “Mr. Trump divided the room, asking viewers to see the two camps as he saw them: There were the Good Americans and there were those willing to jeopardize the country’s security.”

Pages: 1 2

Imagine: You and I Have Friends Who Think This Bernie Sanders Quote Is Profound…

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

…rather than unethical and idiotic. Some of these people even supported the old fool for President.

If fact, democracy dies in fatuous logic like that quote. Jeff Bezos has no more obligation to keep the Washington Post operating than I do. It’s a money losing operation that has squandered its reputation and good will by ceasing to trading objective journalism for leftist propaganda. At least Jeff’s $500 mil. yacht and his wife’s $5 million ring were worth what he paid for them. Bernie’s statement is like saying “If Bezos can afford expensive yachts and rings, then he should build bonfires with $100 bills.” Or “If Y spends money on A because he wants A, then he should waste money on X because I like X.” Brilliant, Bernie. But typical.

Without Bezos or some other billionaire with discretionary funds, there would be no Washington Post at all. Economics, however, has never been Bernie’s long suit, being the fan of Karl Marx that he is. There are few cognitive voids in Woke World more annoying that the “It’s wrong for people to spend money on what they want and care about because they should spend their money on what I want and care about.” The corollary to that is “Therefore, I should have control of those people’s money.”

In related news, climatologist Bjorn Lomborg has calculated that worldwide, governments have spent a staggering $16 trillion at least on climate change policies that have not succeeded in lowering the world’s temperature one bit. Meanwhile, not a single life has been saved. Limiting access to fossil fuels has made poor countries poorer by blocking their access to affordable energy. To be fair, many hustlers and companies have profited from this extravagant exercise in virtue-signalling. Why doesn’t Bernie focus on all those wasted taxpayer dollars? As Stephen Moore writes,

What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off? What if the $16 trillion had been spent on clean water for poor countries? Preventing avoidable deaths from diseases like malaria? Building schools in African villages to end illiteracy? Bringing reliable and affordable electric power to the more than 1 billion people who still lack access? Curing cancer?Many millions of lives could have been saved. We could have lifted millions more out of poverty. The benefits of speeding up the race for the cure for cancer could have added tens of millions of additional years of life at an economic value in the tens of trillions of dollars. Instead, we effectively poured $16 trillion down the drain.

And…and…we could have saved democracy by keeping the Washington Post staff at full strength!

Verdict: Moore is correct. Well except that instead of “we effectively poured $16 trillion down the drain, he should have written we ineffectively poured $16 trillion down the drain.

From “Non-Partisan” Pro Publica, a Lie and a Misrepresentation in a “Good Illegal Immmigrant” Story.

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

ProPublica is certainly full of itself.

“ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” it crows. “We dig deep into important issues, shining a light on abuses of power and betrayals of public trust — and we stick with those issues as long as it takes to hold power to account.” The reality is that whatever meaning “independent’ carries in that statement, it is deceitful. The companion word is supposed to be “objective.” Pro Publican only cares about Republican abuses of power, although it will occasionally tweak a Democrat to maintain the illusion of fairness. It is another Democratic Party ally, like CREW, Media Matters and (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), which has an Ethics Alarms dossier longer than my arm, that poses as non-partisan so its constant attacks on one side of the political spectrum are trusted by the inattentive and gullible.

Today it treats its readers to another “good illegal immigrant” story. The dishonest headline: Trump’s Latest Deportation Tactic: Targeting Immigrants With Minor Family Court Cases.

This is a lie. It suggest that legal immigrants and citizens of the U.S. may be deported based on child care violations. Here is the story behind the headline:

Pages: 1 2

Two “Opinions”…

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

A dumb or obviously biased opinion column in what passes today for our journalism platforms arguably isn’t strictly “unethical.” It does, however, demonstrate incompetence, contempt for the public, or in many cases indolence, as in “Hey Marge! We need something to fill that space on the Op-ed page!” “Oh hell, let’s publish that thing about reparations. It will be good for a few Letters to the Editor.” “Okay! You got it!”

And so we get junk like “Illinois city’s reparations plan is misguided, divisive and likely unconstitutional” on the Fox News website. To begin with the obvious, this is old news. I wrote about Evanston, Illinois’s City Council’s bat-house crazy plan back in June, and the city has been obsessed with this since the it agreed in 2019 to use tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales to generate a reparations fund.

“This year, Evanston, Illinois, will send $25,000 payments to 44 Black residents and descendants of Black residents who lived in the city between 1919 and 1969,” writes Erec Smith, a research fellow at the Cato Institute and a former associate professor of rhetoric at York College of Pennsylvania. Oh! He must be an expert, then! How come he can’t spell “Eric”?

Erec continues,

“At its core, the Evanston program is race-specific, providing benefits solely to Black residents who meet narrow historical criteria. This raises an obvious legal question: Can the government dole out money based on race? Critics have already flagged the program as constitutionally questionable under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Beyond legality, there is a broader question about fairness. The program compensates some individuals while excluding others who may face equal or even greater financial need. Wealthier Black residents in Evanston receive the same payments as those struggling economically, while low-income residents of other races receive nothing. Isn’t a poor White person more in need of that money?”

Pages: 1 2