President Trump’s Third Term Fantasy

We’re back in Julie Principle territory again, unfortunately: “Fish gotta swim, bird’s gotta fly, Trump’s gong to keep saying crazy stuff to make progressives cry…” This is a particularly annoying example. Just as the position of Ethics Alarms is that trusted professionals do not have the luxury of pulling April Fool’s Day hoaxes on the public, it is also unethical for Presidents of the United States to deliberately raise phony issues for public consumption.

The President began raising the possibility of a third term almost from the moment he was elected to his second. It is, of course, impossible. The Constitution forbids it quite unambiguously thanks to the 22nd Amendment, the eventual Congressional reaction to Franklin Roosevelt shattering the unwritten rule, set by our first President, that two elected terms is enough. Over the weekend, Trump said he was “not joking” about there being “methods” to circumvent the two-term limit. No, there really aren’t and never mind that: Trump is 78 years old, not exactly in peak physical condition, and would be 86 at the end of a third term. The real question is whether he can complete this one.

Trump was even sparking speculation about a fantasy race between him and Barack Obama in 2028 for an unconstitutional third term, and a depressing number of morons on social media are taking it seriously. Yes, Dana, that’s your cue…

Here’s what’s happening. I was pondering Trump’s nonsense, and concluded that there are three things going on here, only one of which is substantive:

Continue reading

Gee, I Wonder Why Americans Are Losing Trust In Their Nation’s Institutions? It’s a Mystery!

Science, Academia, Journalism, Government.

On June 3, 2022, the young protestor above tied her neck to the net during a tennis match at the French Open, with her shirt reading “We Have 1028 Days Left” sending the critical message to the world that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had decreed that if massive de-carbonization was not implemented before that (literal!) deadline, it would be too late to save the planet from a climate change apocalypse.

The 1,028th day was last week, Thursday March 27, 2025. Does that young woman feel ridiculous? She should. Now, she probably is one of those fanatics who won’t procreate because children are bad for the environment, but if she does, her kids will have a ball with that photo. I know I would have, just as if there was a photo of my mother as a teen dressed as a banana, or my father with dicks on his face after having them drawn on while he was asleep.

The Totalitarian Left in the U.S. has been citing “science” to justify irresponsible policies for years, indeed decades, and accountability is at hand. If the science of climate change is so “settled,” why are all the predictions and deadlines proven ridiculously false? Even our currently under-educated, critical thinking deprived rising generations are smart enough to figure out a con when they see, well, when they see the same con over and over again. Here’s an article about how the Great Barrier Reef that we were told was being destroyed by global warming (Science!) has more than doubled in a decade and its size and health is the highest ever recorded.

Continue reading

Ethics Hero: Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule

I admit it: this post is putting the cart before the horse. I need to complete a post about the leftist lawyer freak-out over Trump targeting ostentatiously anti-Trump, anti-Republican, pro-Axis law firms by handing them the just desserts for their abandonment of legal ethics and core professional principles to pander to the Democratic Party’s cabal over the past 15 years or more. But I am a bit short of time and energy right now, and Professor Vermeule, that rarity of rarities, a conservative Harvard professor, has done some of my work for me.

Last week, more than ninety members of the Harvard Law School faculty issued a joint letter supposedly concerning the “rule of law,” but actually embracing the same double standards and anti-Trump bias I have been witnessing from my lawyer friends on Facebook and especially in the online discussions among members of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers. It said in part,

“The rule of law is imperiled when government leaders:

  • single out lawyers and law firms for retribution based on their lawful and ethical representation of clients disfavored by the government, undermining the Sixth Amendment;
  • threaten law firms and legal clinics for their lawyers’ pro bono work or prior government service;
  • relent on those arbitrary threats based on public acts of submission and outlays of funds for favored causes; and
  • punish people for lawfully speaking out on matters of public concern.

While reasonable people can disagree about the characterization of particular incidents, we are all acutely concerned that severe challenges to the rule of law are taking place, and we strongly condemn any effort to undermine the basic norms we have described….”

This is disingenuous posturing by partisan academics pretending to be neutral patriots. Professor Vermeule called them out on their pretense, writing in part in an open letter to his own to students and the public,

Continue reading

Weekend Ethics Spring Bouquet

I recently noticed that one of my Facebook friends of long-standing whom I respect greatly is now officially bonkers, thank to the Trump Derangement pandemic. I find this more than sad: it’s terrifying that a lifetime of critical thinking and rational, balanced analysis can be unmoored simply by having too many friends and associates who are ignorant hysterics and not realizing that the news media you frequent every day is mind poison.

Lawyers and ethicists are being hit especially hard; the fact that almost all of my theater associates are freaking out is less of a shock, for most of them have always been this way. My legal ethics specialist listserv is in the process of melting down over a few well-reasoned objections to the most of the opinions being offered residing more in the realm of progressive politics than legal ethics. But Trump is a threat to the rule of law! There wasn’t any concern whatsoever expressed on this same platform when Donald Trump was being targeted by Democratic prosecutors so that their party could continue to hold power. If Merrick Garland or Joe Biden were even mentioned there in four years, I must have missed it. I was amused to see one of the loyal “non-partisan,””objective” ethicists defend the group’s obsession with Trump by quoting the “Man for All Seasons” speech about giving the Devil the benefit of the law (Guess who the Devil is!) as another resorted to the hoary “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out..” quote from Martin Niemöller. Trump’s not the Devil, he’s Hitler! My friend, a retired partner in big D.C. law firm, is just about as impossible to argue with now as this idiot. Watching him devolve is like seeing a zombie movie…

Meanwhile,

Continue reading

Least Shocking Scandal of 2025…

Jonathan Turley reports,

“[A] long-withheld report from the Biden Administration directly contradicted the claims of climate change used to limit increased U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The suggestion is that this was an knowing effort to cap carbon admissions rather than carbon emissions. The impact that new U.S. LNG exports have on the environment and the economy was reviewed by U.S. Energy Department scientists and completed by September 2023. It appears that neither President Biden nor Secretary Jennifer Granholm liked the science or the conclusions. Rather than “follow the science,” they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their own experts…The draft study, “Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports,” found that, under all modeled scenarios, an increase in U.S. LNG exports and natural gas production would not change global or U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It further found that it would not increase energy prices for consumers. Biden and Granholm reportedly buried the report and then announced a pause on all new U.S. LNG export terminals in January 2024, citing the danger to environmental and economic impacts.”

Gee what a surprise.

But seriously folks, anyone who is even faintly surprised at this development hasn’t been watching, listening or paying attention to either the “science of cliamte change” or the debate over energy policy. What is far from “settled science” is deliberately presented as a consensus. Policies that harm the U.S. economy and consumers have been regularly inflicted on the nation as pure virtue-signaling to the Left, with full knowledge that they can’t possibly have any effect on the world’s climate, present or future. And revealing that the Biden Administration engaged in public deception….well, this is a group that regularly manipulated government employment figures, Wuhan virus pandemic statistics and social media to control public opinion as much as as possible.

Heck, this is a group that hid who was really wielding power in the White House! Hiding a study that doesn’t support a Democrat-Progressive world view? Totalitarianism 101, and the Democratic Party is poisoned by a totalitarian-trending political culture now, as we repeatedly saw during the last four years.

My only problem with Turley’s analysis is that it is thinly sourced, because apparently only Fox News has covered the story so far. I searched for it at the New York Times site: nada. If the story is somewhere in the Times, then the news story is being buried like the study itself…or this is another example of the partisan divide in our unethical “journalism” making it impossible for the public to find out what’s really going on.

That wouldn’t be shocking either.

Thoughts and Musings While Re-Watching “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World,” Continued: Yes, It’s An Ethics Movie

Before I leave the first installment of this post and move on to the film’s ethical significance, I should mention that “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World” caught a cultural wave perfectly, accounting for its box office success. In this it was just lucky, and that moment in time is now long gone, which is why the film appeals to me from a historical perspective more than as entertainment.

There have been many attempts to mine the same property for laughs, and none of the offspring of IAMMMMW have equaled its model in reputation or box office success. Blake Edward’s “The Great Race,” just two years later, was billed as the most expensive movie comedy ever made, and bombed. (Peter Falk is in both IAMMMMW and “The Great Race.”) In 2001, the “Airplane!” gang made “Rat Race,” which was obviously inspired by Kramer’s opus. It had a less starry cast (of course) and made a profit, but was generally regarded as a second rate (second rat?) version of the original. “Scavanger Hunt was a 1979 rip-off with a more IAMMMMW-like ensemble cast, and was a flop. Lesser attempts to recycle the film’s formula, “Midnight Madness” and “Million Dollar Mystery” (note the “m” alliterations) were even more embarrassing failures.

On to the ethics…Much was made of the fact that director Stanley Kramer had never directed or produced a comedy before. In fact, his career output was ostentatiously serious, and often criticized as preachy and overly preoccupied with moral-ethical conflicts. Among his most famous movies are “Judgement at Nuremberg,” “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” “Inherit the Wind,” “The Defiant Ones,” “On the Beach” and “Ship of Fools.” I’m sure that part of Kramer’s motivation for directing a huge slapstick comedy was to show his versatility, just as Spielberg felt that he needed to direct a movie musical with “West Side Story.” However, viewed in light of the times and Kramer’s artistic sensibilities, IAMMMMW now seems schizophrenic, a silly comedy with serious social commentary…and both parts undermine each other.

Continue reading

Unethical Quote of the Week: Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY)

“This is the political weaponization of the DOJ. Trump uses his official authority to defend his benefactor Elon Musk. The FBI then creates a task force to use our law enforcement to ‘crack down’ on adversaries of Musk’s. Where are the Republicans so opposed to ‘lawfare’?”

—Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), mounting his challenge to be the most irresponsible and dishonest hack in Congress.

Just when I think I’ve figured out who the most disgracefully unethical member of Congress is after the merciful departures of George Santos, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, another contender says “Hold my beer!”

I thought the current run-away champ was shaping up to be potty-mouthed, jive-talking Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who padded her lead yesterday during the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency hearing titled “Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the heads of NPR and PBS Accountable. ” Demonstrating once again that she either doesn’t understand the Constitution or wants to make sure the public doesn’t understand it, she said in one of her characteristic rants, “To be clear, free speech is not about whatever it is that y’all want somebody to say, and the idea that you want to shut down everybody that is not Fox News is bullshit. We need to stop playing, because that’s what you all are doing here, you don’t want to hear the opinions of anybody else,” Crockett said.

I don’t understand why someone, maybe even a Democrat with some self-respect and integrity, didn’t have the sense or guts to point out to this demagogue that the First Amendment doesn’t require the government to subsidize political speech, only to avoid restricting it. PBS and NPR will be free to be as biased, partisan and dishonest as they please, but someone other than taxpayers should pay for it. Goldman’s idiocy, however, was even more flagrant. Let me turn the metaphorical mic over to Professor Turley, who already has neatly described what Goldman is doing:

Continue reading

It’s Official: “A Nation of Assholes” Has Come to Pass, and Its Herald is Jasmine Crockett

The U.S. now has a member of Congress who is regarded as a rising leader of a major political party who talks like this…

“Y’all know we got Governor Hot Wheels down there. Come on now! And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot-ass mess, honey!”

That was Rep. Crockett speaking at a human rights event over the weekend. The intentionally vulgar, street-talking Texas representative (she was raised in a wealthy family and attended private schools, so her Samuel L. Jacskon imitation is pure cynical artifice) was already being justly criticized for telling Democrats to “take out” Elon Musk, at a time when her party’s loonies are looking for an excuse to move from domestic terrorism against Tesla owners to more direct forms of violence. Now this member of what styles itself as the sensitive, caring party is mocking a man, Texas Governor Abbott, who has been in a wheelchair for decades by calling him “Hot Wheels.” Be proud, Democrats, Texans, women, homo sapiens.

Crockett’s excuse after her cruel ad hominem attack was properly condemned tells us even more about the character of the latest “rising star” of the Left:

“I wasn’t thinking about the governor’s condition—I was thinking about the planes, trains, and automobiles he used to transfer migrants into communities led by Black mayors, deliberately stoking tension and fear among the most vulnerable. Literally, the next line I said was that he was a “Hot Ass Mess,” referencing his terrible policies. At no point did I mention or allude to his condition. So, I’m even more appalled that the very people who unequivocally support Trump—a man known for racially insensitive nicknames and mocking those with disabilities—are now outraged.”

She’s beneath contempt, but Crockett’s “Whataboutism” (#2 on the Rationalization List) argument following her self-evident lie is not without validity. How far is calling a governor in a wheelchair “Hot Wheels” from calling a President obviously suffering from progressive dementia “Slow Joe”?

I’ll accept the utilitarian conclusion that electing Trump President twice was, on balance, important for the nation; I might even agree with it. However, I don’t think it is possible to credibly argue that the destructive decline in civility and decorum in society, and especially in political discourse, should not be laid at Donald Trump’s feet. It is a major cultural wound with implications for democracy as well as social relations in our society generally.

I warned about this on September 10, 2015.

Signal Chat Ethics Train Wreck Update…

With Trump officials, the President, his paid liar Karoline Leavitt stating, and both John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard swearing under oath that top US officials discussing operational details of plans to bomb Yemen before the operation miraculously did not contain any, classified information, The Atlantic today released much of the transcript as collected by editor Jeffrey Goldberg in a new article. I haven’t read the whole thing because I will not give a cent to The Atlantic, now one of the most notorious Axis allies. But the excerpts I have read elsewhere are hardly the discussions of favorite recipes for guacamole.

The Guardian, another hack Axis member, calls the texts “disastrous leak of sensitive information.” Fake news, via deceit. Because of dumb luck, the sloppy and unforgivable way an approaching attack was discussed had no “disastrous” effects except for the degree to which it showed incompetence and recklessness by Trump’s national security leaders, and the fact that the reaction of the Administration, including the President, has been to emulate the Democrats’ “It isn’t what it is” playbook should set off ethics alarms coast to coast.

Continue reading

So Far, Flunking the Integrity Test of the “Signal Chat Ethics Train Wreck” [Part II]

In the interest of time—mine—I’m going to list the relevant developments and my observations as bullet points, with the full knowledge that I will be posting on this again, and probably soon. So here we go, into the wreckage…

Continue reading