Government & Politics

“What’s Going On Here?” Saturday Continues: Why Is The President Signing Obviously Unconstitutional Executive Orders?

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

President Donald Trump yesterday signed a second executive order aimed at regulating college sports. It lays out specific transfer and eligibility rules, limits how athletes can be compensated for their name, image and likeness, and threatens schools that violate rules with financial penalties. The EO comes less than a month after the President attended a roundtable of college sports and business leaders convened by the White House collegiate sports-related issue and potential federal legislation.

Yesterday’s executive order is flat-out unconstitutional. It directs the NCAA to create rules that mandate college athletes can play for “no more than a five-year period” and allows them to transfer schools only once before they graduate without having to sit out a season. A school that plays an athlete who doesn’t meet these new limits could risk losing its federal funding. The NCAA is also commanded to update its rules to create a national registry for player agents while establishing policies that prevent schools from cutting scholarships or other opportunities for women’s and Olympic sports in order to pay their athletes.

The rule changes are scheduled to go into effect August 1. Fat chance.

The EO will be challenged in court and can’t possible survive constitutional scrutiny. The theory is that Trump, who has always been a big sports fan, is trying to spur legislative action or push (bully?) the NCAA into making changes he thinks are prudent. But this is none of his business, or any President’s. It is also an abuse of the Executive Order. Is he just trolling? Trying to kill Trump Deranged Americans by making their heads explode?

The “No Kings” nonsense is spectacularly silly, but Trump deciding to act like a king by sending out toothless and illegal edicts is no way to respond to it. The President should use his power, influence, position and “bully pulpit” on matters of state, not matters that reside firmly and undeniably within the discretion of private bodies and organizations, like the NCAA.

The EO on college sports isn’t just obnoxious, stupid, illegal and politically obtuse, but obviously so. Even the President has to know that: he’s remarkably constitutionally obtuse, but he can’t be that ignorant, can he? And he’s surrounded by lawyers: surely all of them can’t be incompetent. Can they?

What’s next? An EO declaring that everyone should wear their underwear on the outside? A declaration that pineapple doesn’t belong on pizzaa? An order that people should stop saying, “No worries?”

Ethics Dunce: Sec. of War Hegseth

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Oh come on.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth lifted the suspension of Army pilots under investigation for hovering near Kid Rock’s Tennessee mansion last week to give the rabid Trump supporter a “shout-out.” In a post on social media, Hegseth also saluted the B list rocker and said “pilots suspension LIFTED. No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots.”

Kid Rock posted two videos of him waving to the Apache helicopter as it lingered near the pool outside of his Nashville estate. The musician said, “God Bless America and all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend her.” That’s nice. It doesn’t justify or excuse military pilots using government equipment for partisan demonstrations that were not ordered or approved by superiors.

The Army confirmed that two Apache helicopters from the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Campbell had taken part in the frolic flights and that the crews involved had been suspended pending an investigation “The Army takes any allegations of unauthorized or unsafe flight operations very seriously and is committed to enforcing standards and holding personnel accountable,” Army spokesman, Maj. Montrell Russell said in a statement.

Apparently not seriously enough. Kid Rock pooh-poohed the possibility of repercussions for the pilots, saying, “I think they’re going to be alright — my buddy is the commander in chief!”

Yecchh.

Unprofessional, destructive to military discipline, redolent of special dispensations for partisan loyalty, incompetent, irresponsible, foolish and wrong. I’d love to know the genuine reactions of our military personnel. My late father, the major, who was a stickler for military order and discipline, is probably spinning in his Arlington grave.

An Axis Trump Derangement Case Study: The White House Ballroom Tantrum

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Above is how a federal judge and all my Trump Deranged friends would like to see the White House East Wing look for the next three years or more.

How dignified and reflective of America’s history and greatness! This makes sense to them, you see, because President Trump took the initiative and decided to fix a long-standing deficiency of the White House, where he lives. Any previous President could have done this without uproar or significant opposition, you see, but as an example of the continuing 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck, when the Left decided that it wasn’t going to accept the shocking election of a political outsider to foil their presumed coronation of a corrupt Democrat (but a historic one, see, so it was okay) and set out to obstruct literally anything he decided to do, big or small, important or trivial.

Pages: 1 2

Pam Bondi Is Fired: Good! [Quote Fixed]

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Now, opinions differ regarding President Trump firing Pam Bondi today. The “buzz” is that her botched handling of the Epstein files, saying they were sitting on her desk, then that there weren’t any, then dribbling them out in a manner guaranteed to create conspiracy theories, was the reason. Others, like the Axis news media, claim that she had failed, in Trump’s eyes, to effectively prosecute “the President’s political foes.” Note the emphasis: that framing makes it sound as if these miscreants’ only flaw was opposing Trump. In truth, most of them, maybe all, deserve prosecution. But never mind.

The main point is that Bondi has been fired, and deserved to be fired; indeed, she should never have been appointed or confirmed in the first place. When she was nominated in November of 2024, I wrote in “Breaking: Trump Has A New Attorney General Nominee, and Arguably, She’s Worse Than Matt Gaetz…”:

“Matt Gaetz was an unqualified pick for AG. Pam Bondi is a corrupt one. Out of the ethics frying pan, into the fire. Nice. (I’m sure she’s loyal, though.)”

As it turned out, Bondi was also incompetent. Let’s see: just this past month, we had this and this, plus this embarrassment. And let’s not forget Bondi’s unprofessional behavior in a hearing in February. None of this was a surprise, but I get a Fredo anyway.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Observations On Byron Noem’s “Bimbofication” Scandal

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments

Bryon Noem, the husband of recently fired DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, was revealed to be fond of dressing up in women’s clothing, often with massive fake breasts, while paying to interact with others portraying “bimbos,” the Daily Mail reported in a “scoop” that appears to be well-sourced.

His wife issued a statement to the New York Post saying she was “devastated” and her family was “blindsided.” President Trump only commented that he felt badly for the family and that his former DHS head’s husband’s odd hobby was “news to him.”

Predictably, the revelation, which 56-year-old Byron Noem has not denied, thrilled progressives, who pointed to his wife’s alleged hypocrisy in opposing LGBTQ rights, and horrified conservatives, who are as kinky as anyone else but don’t like admitting it.

What’s going on here?

Pages: 1 2

Divisive?

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

The Great Stupid’s warped values have made the term “divisive” particularly problematical regarding societal ethics. If, for example, a sign condemning sex with children is deemed to be divisive to some sick SOBs, my reaction is, “Good. Live with it. You’re wrong and normal people are right. We don’t care if you feel denigrated. You should be denigrated. And shunned.”

Then we have the divisive appeal for funds I highlighted earlier today. I firmly believe that an appeal for charitable assistance for one “tribe” or group to the exclusion of others who have exactly the same claim to charity, empathy, humanitarian aid and generosity is divisive, destructive, and wrong.

Two examples of controversies involving art and messaging also came across my ethics metaphorical radar screen today….

I. The mural honoring murdered refugee Iryna Zarutska in Providence, Rhode Island. The last moments of the innocent young woman slaughtered for no reason in particular by a deranged criminal repeatedly released to prey on an unsuspecting public is on the left, the now condemned mural in her honor is on the right. Mayor Brett Smiley (D, of course) ordered the unfinished mural, largely funded by Elon Musk, taken down. “The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like this across the country is divisive and does not represent Providence,” he said in a statement. “I continue to encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than further divides us.” Smiley’s Democrat primary challenger, Rhode Island state Rep. David Morales, said, “We’re seeing a right-wing movement that is exploiting the death of the refugee for the purposes of trying to spread division. Ultimately, we want to make sure that every community member that calls Providence home feels safe … and we can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence’s values.”

That’s interesting. What values do the honoring of a young woman who died because of elected officials, judges and law enforcement officials determination not to punish criminals and wrong doers “not reflect”? The fact that Iryna Zarutska was a Ukranian refugee is irrelevant, isn’t it? A young woman named Ann Jones, or a young man named Bill Shaw, or an old fart named, oh, say, Jack Marshall, being murdered while using public transportation would be equally worthy of public anger, wouldn’t it? Is dividing people who care about law abiding citizens being murdered because of irresponsible policies from those who shrug such horrors off as “collateral damage” a bad thing? What kind of people is Mayor Smiley and David Morales standing up for? Killers? Maniacs? Is the mural divisive because this particular maniac was black and his victim was white? I think the message of the mural is “Shame on you!” to all of the progressives, “restorative justice,” “defund the police” activists whose hands are stained with the blood of victims like Iryna Zarutska. Why should that message be suppressed or discouraged?

In its groveling statement sucking up to the woke and offended by justice, the owners of the building where the mural appeared mewled “We heard you [Providence]. We are deeply and sincerely sorry for everything that has taken place over the past week. After reflecting and learning, we have made the decision to discontinue this project and will move forward with removal as soon as possible. We remain committed to fostering unity, safety, and care for all members of our community, and we will continue to listen, learn, and act with those values at the forefront.”

Sure, you foster safety by supporting the removal of a strong statement against pandering to criminals. Got it. You’re disgusting.

[Pointer: JutGory]

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Verdict: It Is Unethical For President Trump To Attend The SCOTUS Oral Argument On Birthright Citizenship

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments

As I write this, the Supreme Court is hearing a case challenging the tradition that nearly all children born in the United States, whoever their parents may be and how they came to be here, are automatically citizens.

On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order stating that babies born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants and temporary foreign visitors were ineligible for birthright citizenship. That was an obvious shot across the bow of the U.S. Supreme Court as it challenged an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that has stood for over a century. The President knew his EO would be also challenged, and would eventually end up on the Supreme Court docket.

Because this is an important question that would, if SCOTUS agreed with the President’s interpretation of the Constitutional intent (there were no such things as “illegal immigrants” when the Constitution was written) have massive consequences in many areas, the oral argument is attracting blow-by-blow analysis. That is not my purpose here.

The issue for Ethics Alarms is President Trump’s decision to attend the oral argument. No previous President has done this, although nothing prevents the President from attending. Trump’s predecessors all avoided the option, though there have been many, many cases over the years that the President knew would have a major effect on his policies as well and the matters he had to deal with. President Pierce did not attend the Dred Scott oral arguments. To be fair, he was barely engaged at any time in his miserable four years in the White House. But FDR didn’t sit in while the Court was determining the fates of his many New Deal programs. Nixon didn’t listen to the Pentagon Papers arguments.

Pages: 1 2

How Ignorant and Biased Are Reporters? This Ignorant and Biased…

/ Jack Marshall / 29 Comments

Oh great: “war crimes” again. I’m afraid to check Facebook because I am sure that about 20 of my Trump Deranged show biz friends will be ranting about this.

Yesterday, President Trump posted on Truth Social that a number of Iranian targets would be obliterated if Iran does not allow the Hormuz Strait to be opened immediately. NBC White House correspondent Garrett Haake channeled his inner John Lennon and mewled to White House Paid Liar Karoline Leavitt,

“The president posted this morning about his threat that on leaving Iran he said, ‘Blowing up and completely obliterating all of their electric generating plants, oil wells, hard island, and possibly all desalination plants,’ Under international law, striking civilian infrastructure like that is generally prohibited. Why is the President threatening what would amount to potentially a war crime with the US military? And how do you square that with the administration repeatedly saying that the US does not target civilians?”

My metaphorical hat is off to Leavitt, who was appropriately diplomatic and did not smite this Axis idiot with the rhetorical barrage that I would have.

“Look,” she said. “The President has made it quite clear to the Iranian regime at this moment in time, as evidenced by the statement that you just read, that their best move is to make a deal, or else the United States Armed Forces has capabilities beyond their wildest imagination and the President is not afraid to use them.” Shethen denied that that Trump was contemplating “war crimes.”

I would have said, “Garrett, the United States is in a war, and the Geneva convention, which is an imaginary set of pacifist edicts that the United States does not feel bound by when the interests of the nation, Americans and civilization itself are at risk, will not restrain the United States in its efforts to conclude this conflict or any conflict as quickly as possible. Moreover nothing in the President’s message suggested that he was “targeting civilians.” But if civilians are at risk because it is necessary to remove facilities and resources that Iran needs to continue fighting, and if the real threat of losing these prompts Iran to surrender or make a good faith effort to negotiate a peace settlement, that is regrettable but unavoidable. This is a war. The United States will not limit its options to prevail.”

I might have been able to avoid concluding with, “you idiot.”

Several commentators have noted that the Axis media and the anti-American Left are using the same playbook and propaganda to support Iran against their own country that they embraced to support Gaza (Hamas, terrorists…) against Israel. I still await the tipping point when the public turns decisively and permanently against these people.

Surely it must be on the horizon.

“No Kings” Hangover Notes

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments
  • I found the responses of the two grinning protesters empty and fatuous, but not incoherent. They are protesting to protest, because it’s “democratic.” It’s fun being in all that energy and shared emotion. I marveled at this back in college; I’d venture that most protesters at these large rallies can’t articulate what it is they are so upset about.
  • I also think the mother might have brought her daughter to the “No Kings” rally as to experience democracy in action, and because they probably live in a community where the schools and institutions and communities are knee-jerk Left, and the mother can boast of her commitment and virtue. It’s sort of nice in a way.
  • In New York, there were Palestinian flags, plus signs and chants calling for defunding the police. Communist groups were part of most of the demonstrations. Of course, pro-open borders, anti-ICE signs were in abundance too. Question: how do mostly moderate, educated, otherwise rational  Americans  appear to be allied with such groups—pro-terrorist, anti-law enforcement, anti-American—and not wonder, “Wait, why am I associating with these people?”
  • There were riots in the demonstrations in Portland and L.A. “Peaceful protesters” threw bricks at police officers in L.A. Nice. How many of those people know that the “right to protest,” aka free speech, does not include throwing things?
  • Doug Emhoff, Kamala’s Beta Male hubby, posed for pictures in Malibu with Trump Deranged D-list celebrities like Kathy Griffin. How low can you go?
  • According to a copy of the permit for the “flagship” “No Kings” march in St. Paul, Minnesota, Indivisible, a national Democratic political advocacy organization funded by radical Left billionaire George Soros is the lead coordinator for the protest. Fox News reported that Neville Roy Singham, an American tech tycoon and self-proclaimed  communist living in China also finances many of the activist groups that fueled the “No Kings” tantrums, including the People’s Forum in New York, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the ANSWER Coalition and CodePink, whose co-founder Jodie Evans is married to Singham.

My father used to tell a joke about a man who kept snapping his fingers compulsively. His wife sent him to a psychiatrist, who asked him, “What’s with the finger-snapping?” “It keeps the elephants away,” the man said.

“What?” said the shrink. “There are no elephants for hundreds of miles from here!” “See?” the man said. “It works!”

The “No Kings” protests are like that.

This Is How Axis Media Bias Warps The News (This Also Is CNN…)

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

[I submit that question above as a less vulgar substitute for “Does a bear shit in the woods?”]

Just sat down a while ago to wake up to what we laughingly call “the news” while cuddling my dog and drinking some Italian Roast to get my brain functioning, sort of. As usual I wandered aimlessly among CNN, Fox News and MSNOW to gauge the difference in emphasis and tone, while jumping back periodically to check with the MLB channel’s morning round-up of yesterday’s baseball games.

The second I landed on CNN, I was told that a new HUD policy put forth by…THE EVIL TRUMP ADMINISTRATION!!!!…could put thousands of homeless people “including many veterans” back on the street. HUD wants to transfer billions in funding from permanent housing to temporary housing, which means, CNN kind of explained, two-year residency. BUT, the grim-faced reporter said, many homeless would probably leave sooner than that. A judge has halted the policy’s implementation after a law suit—of course—but the report simply regurgitated what the complaint from homeless activist organizations alleged.

What they alleged, CNN appeared to believe, is the only way to see this situation. All CNN did was quote the plaintiffs’ filings. Why does HUD want to change the policy? We got no information about that at all. I have other questions: what are the benefits of “permanent housing” as opposed to “temporary housing”? What is “permanent housing” anyway? If someone is in “permanent housing,” why are they still called homeless? If they leave temporray housing before their time is up, why wouldn’t they leave permanent housing? Will spending money on temporary housing rather than permanent housing serve the homeless population better? Will it serve taxpayers better?

Pages: 1 2