The Founders Agree: Of Course Operation Epic Fury Is Legal

Rod Martin is a conservative pundit; he also, unlike most pundits, has actually accomplished things in his life other than producing hot air. He was the founder and CEO of Martin Capital and helped start PayPal, and can justly call himself a futurist and tech entrepreneur. Now he writes a substack when the spirit moves him, and he just authored a marvelous Shut-Up-You-Don’t-Know-What-You’re Talking-About historical review for the Axis knee-jerks and my Trump Deranged Facebook Friends (and, I suspect, yours) who are calling the President’s action in Iran “illegal.”

They should be embarrassed, but won’t be; I am embarrassed. As someone who prides himself on being informed reagarding American Presidential history, I knew Trump’s latest FAFO move was supported by precedent, but only looked as far back as Barack Obama’s administration, more for its ethics estoppel value to all of the President’s current critics who were silent as Obama bombed Libya without Congressional authorization and gleefully droned-to-death American citizens abroad because he deemed them a threat to the Republic.

I’m a moron. There is a much stronger case to be made, indeed an irrefutable one, that President Trump was well within his powers and the boundaries of the Constitution. As I read Martin’s essay, once again, as has been happening frequently of late, the image of my beloved but diabolical Jack Russell Terrier Dickens came to mind, madly shaking something in my face to prove a point. I’m Dickens, and the Trump Deranged are my face.

Martin begins by pointing out that the base of the Iwo Jima Memorial, just a few miles from my home, contains more than a giant iconic statue depicting a critical moment in World War II. It also includes a list of America’s foreign conflicts. “Many are declared wars or battles in them; many are not,” he writes. “But one sticks out in my mind during the current debate over the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s military actions: the French Naval War of 1798-1800, more commonly known as “the Undeclared Naval War with France.”

Presenting The Little-Known Progeny of “Bias Makes You Stupid”: “Bias Makes You Direct Stupid Versions of ‘Inherit The Wind'”

I’m sorry to return to the topic of theatrical casting ethics so soon after my last deep dive (here), but The Arena Stage’s new production of the Lawrence and Lee classic “Inherit the Wind” has opened in Washington D.C., where that company is revered beyond all others. It is a travesty, theatrically and historically, and especially directorally, since the director, Ryan Guzzo Purcell, has apparently done no research into the history behind the drama or, in the alternative, has decided that virtue signalling and DEI sensibilities are more important than fairness to the authors and an unquestioned American classic.

I suppose, he could be just plain nuts.

“This classic courtroom drama, inspired by the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial, explores profound themes of intellectual freedom, religious conviction, and scientific discovery. Witness the gripping narrative unfold in the nation’s capital,” the Arena says on its website. Right. That’s what the play is supposed to be about. It also is a fictionalized version of a famous historical event involving three famous and important American figures: Clarence Darrow, generally believed to be the greatest trial lawyer this nation ever produced (I know a little bit about him), William Jennings Bryan, the famous orator, statesman, and three-time loser as the Democratic nominee for President, and H.L. Mencken, the brilliant, acerbic, misanthropic writer who covered the trial for the Baltimore Sun. Lawrence and Lee, the playwrights, ethically decided that rather than falsely represent real historical figures whose words and characters they might need to manipulate for dramatic purpose, made it clear who their characters were based on and gave them suggestive but different names so there would be no confusing the fiction with fact. (I say “ethically” to contrast their conduct with the writers of “Death by Lightning”). Thus Darrow became “Henry Drummond,” Bryan became “Matthew Harrison Brady,” H.L became “E.K. Hornbeck” and Scopes became “Bertram Cates.” Nonetheless, the historical connection to the real figures is central to the show.

But not to the Arena Stage. The actor playing Bryan/Brady is made to resemble Colonel Sanders for some reason, in a Kentucky Fried Chicken goatee and a white plantation suit. Bryan was famously a Mid-Westerner, so this appearance is jarring, especially since the play has a long running bit about the court calling Bryan/Brady by the honorific title,”Colonel.” This choice is approximately as disorienting as casting a character based on Abe Lincoln with a jockey. Knowing that Brady is Bryan is important: a major speech by Brady’s wife laments the pain the character suffered from being defeated in three runs for the White House. Bryan is the only man since 1844 to run for the office three times. In the classic movie version of the play, Frederick March played Brady taking pains to evoke Bryan’s speaking style, his posture, expressions and body language. His performance was finger-lickin’ good.

Today’s Lesson In The Ethical Deterioration Of Congress: Rep. Mace and Omar’s Insult-Fest…

I would put up “The Country’s in the Very Best of Hands” again (from the excellent musical “Li’l Abner,” which probably will never be produced anywhere ever again), but even I’m getting sick of it, it’s been appropriate so often lately. Thus this time I’m only posting images of the two latest examples of what terrible role models and representatives we have in Congress, Rep. Omar and Rep. Mace.

After President Donald Trump announced the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei following U.S.-Israeli strikes on the country, Mace posted a Fox News graphic of Khamenei with the legend, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Confirmed Dead.” She added “My heart goes out to Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib tonight. Sending them thoughts and prayers.”

Omar, whose instincts for dignified comportment were on vivid display last week at the State of the Union affair, responded, “I hope you aren’t drunk and took your staff’s advice. Rashida and I don’t know this man and feel confident he didn’t care about us. Please restrain from drinking too much as you have been warned from your staff and stay off social media when you are drunk. I pray in his holy month you find peace and respect for your self.”

Mace, who denies accusations that she has a drinking problem, tweeted back, “So tell me, what was it like being married to your brother?” Later Mace wrote, “Ilhan Omar didn’t care that over 1,000 Jews were slaughtered on a Jewish holiday. Maybe sit this one out terrorist lover.”

To her credit, Omar did not respond, “OK, Nazi bitch! You want a piece of me? Bring it on! After I whip your flabby ass, you’ll be the one wearing a burka!”

Well.

The Axis, the Trump-Deranged and the Anti-American Americans Beclowning Themselves During the Iran Misson, 6:48 AM-6:48 PM, EST…

Me: Not really. All that matters to these tiresome crazies is that President Trump is doing it, so it must be bad. That was a 6:48 AM post. The Axis only got worse, as the Left threw a tantrum over its failed ideology being exposed once again as the weak, foolish sham it is…

Me: Not soon enough. Carter allowed Iran to commit an act of war by kidnapping the U.S. Embassy personnel and holding them for ransom. For all these years, the Democratic Party has been the weenie party, making the world a more dangerous place. Now it is furious because the U.S. is finally using its power as it should have all along. There has to be “a big kid on the block,” or the world goes to Hell, and the Big Kid had better be the one nation that aspires to seek freedom and ethics.

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

…”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.”

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

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:

Happy Birthday, George Washington From Ethics Alarms, And Thank Your Dad For Us Too…

It’s George Washington’s birthday. Nine years ago I wrote, in one of my annual posts on perhaps our most important President (George Will calls him “the Indispensable Man) that something has gone seriously wrong when one’s blog has 287 posts on Donald Trump and only six about Washington. I don’t even want to think about what the count is now, but here is another one in George’s column.

George Washington’s father Augustine had at one time or another run across a list of 110 virtues that young men should adopt and practice in order to be become civil, respectful and honorable members of polite society. He made George, and presumably all his sons (he had six of them) copy them by hand to aid in memorizing the list. George, at least, dutifully committed to memory “110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation,”  which was  based on a document composed by French Jesuits in 1595; neither the author nor the English translator and adapter are known today. The elder Washington was following the theory of Aristotle, who held that principles and values began as being externally imposed by authority (morals) and eventually became internalized as character.

Those ethics alarms installed by his father stayed in working order throughout George’s remarkable life. It was said that Washington was known to quote the rules when appropriate, and never forgot them. They did not teach him to be the gifted leader he became, but they helped to make him a trustworthy one.

The list has been available on Ethics Alarms under Rule Book since its beginnings in 2009. By all means read the whole list; I have used it often in ethics seminars but haven’t referred to it here for too long. The 90 rules omitted in the list below contain some gems too, and many that raise curiosity about what exactly the author was thinking of. For example, I find #2. “When in company, put not your hands to any part of the body not usually discovered” and #3. “Show nothing to your friend that may affright him” intriguing.

Below are my 20 favorite entries from the list that helped make George George, therefore helped George make America America:

Updates On “The Great Stupid”

Let’s start our review of just how dumb our population, society and culture have become since The Great Stupid spread its dark wings over the land with the book covers above. The book, current on sale and display at Barnes and Noble among other stores, is called “Mona’s Eyes,” referring to the “Mona Lisa,” perhaps the best known and most famous painting of all, by Leonardo Da Vinci. But the publisher allowed the eyes being used on the cover jacket to be those of a completely different woman in a different painting by another famous painter. Those eyes belong to “The Girl With A Pearl Earring, by Vermeer.

Morons.

There is a silver lining here, however. In mocking that cover, “Instapundit’s” Ed Driscoll quoted a minor Ethics Alarms post from 2023 on a book about Pearl Harbor with a cover graphic showing German planes attacking our navy on December 7, 1941. I clicked on the link and was amazed to find myself reading my own post, which I had completely forgotten about. In the resulting phenomenon known as an Insta-lanch (this is EA’s third), that post got over 3,600 views (and counting) after only being read about 500 times in three years.

Meanwhile:

“Death By Lightning,” the Defamation of Dead Heroes, and the Betrayal of Julia Sand

I finally watched the critically praised Netflex series “Death By Lightning” last night. Friends, knowing my obsession with Presidential history, had urged me to watch it. I had hesitated because I dreaded exactly what I witnessed last night. The limited series, based on Candice Millard’s best-selling history “Destiny of the Republic,” managed to both make me angry and break my heart.

Putting on my director’s hat and my film critic hat (kind of like Chester A. Arthur in the series wearing three hats on top of another during a drunken spree—one of many made-up scenes that completely misrepresented our 21st President), I’ll grant that the series was entertaining—especially so if one knows nothing about the events it alleges to portray—and well-acted by a strong cast. I also give it credit for portraying relatively accurately one of my favorite moments in U.S. political history. James Garfield, a brilliant but obscure Ohio Representative, was asked to deliver the Presidential nomination speech for fellow Ohioan Senator John Sherman, General Sherman’s brother, at the 1880 GOP National Convention. Garfield’s speech was so passionate, eloquent and inspiring that when he concluded, “therefore, I nominate the next President of the United States…” a couple of delegates shouted out, “Garfield!” before he could get out “John Sherman of Ohio!” Garfield was stunned, and as the convention descended into a deadlock, objected strenuously while over 35 ballots, rogue delegates began consolidating their support behind him until finally, on the 36th ballot, he was nominated against his will.

That does not, however, make up for the series’ worst omission and distortion of history.

I have posted several times here the remarkable, uplifting, ethically-enlightening story of Julia Sand, most recently on this past Presidents Day. She was the crippled spinster who wrote private letters to Vice-President Chester A. Arthur, then hiding in seclusion as President Garfield was being butchered by his doctors after being shot by lunatic Charles Guiteau. Her letters told Arthur that he could not only do the looming job he felt unfit for, but also that he had the inner resources to do it well.

She told the terrified political hack that he could muster the courage and character to do what so many other great figures in history have done when fate thrust them into a position where they were challenged to rise above their previous conduct and priorities. Arthur did in fact meet that challenge when President Garfield died, earning recognition as the “accidental” President who most surpassed public expectations.

I love the story, and I regard Julia Sand as the perfect example of how seemingly powerless, ordinary people can make a difference in our society, government and culture. Maybe she is the best example. Few could be more irrelevant to national affairs in the 1880s than an unmarried, middle-aged woman confined to a wheelchair. Yet Julia Sand probably changed history with her wit, commons sense, writing ability, wisdom and audacity. As an ethicist, I saw the story of Sand and Arthur, which I had never had encountered even in Arthur’s biography, the most important event related in “Destiny of the Republic.”

Yet “Death by Lightning” not only cut Julia out of the story, it gave her words to the dying Garfield and his wife, neither of whom spoke to Chester A. Arthur after Garfield was shot. I can only describe the snub as cruel. Here, at last, was the opportunity to let the public know about the amazing Julia Sand, and instead “Death by Lightning” uses her story to enhance the character of Garfield’s wife, Lucretia.

Lucretia was one of our most literate and influential First Ladies and deserves attention, but not at the cost of erasing Julia Sand.

No, Washington Post Editors, THIS Is What Stephen Colbert’s Spat With CBS Is REALLY About…

….and you all know it as well as I do.

Proving that the Washington Post wasn’t recently gutted by its Gazillionaire owner Jeff Bezos to make it more fair and objective but just to try to save money while keeping it dishonest and partisan, the paper’s Editorial Board published a disingenuous, politically motivated and deliberately misleading editorial [gift link!]explaining that the Trump Administration’ resuscitation of the long dormant—but still on the books—FCC “Equal Time” rule is simply a pretense for using the regulation for political censorship. You see, as the Post editors “explain,” the rule is no longer needed! here is how they frame the current controversy:

“Passed by Congress as a part of the 1934 Communications Act, the equal-time rule says that if a broadcast station features a candidate for public office, it “shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The FCC is charged with enforcing it. On Monday, Colbert said that CBS prohibited him from airing an interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico (D). He claimed the network’s lawyers were worried about clashing with the FCC.

“CBS told a different story. It said Colbert wasn’t prohibited from airing the interview, but rather warned that it might “trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett.” Talarico, a state representative, and Crockett are the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination in the 2026 Texas Senate race. The network claimed it presented Colbert with “options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.”

“On Tuesday night, Colbert rebuked the network again, but the finger-pointing misses the point of how a zombie regulation created this mess in the first place.

“The government shouldn’t be dictating the political content of late-night television — or of any other entertainment Americans choose to consume. But that’s exactly what the equal-time rule does. It is rooted in an entirely different technological landscape; in the early 20th century, scarce radio frequencies meant that the means of mass communication were limited. That’s why Congress saw fit to try to mandate that all candidates got a hearing.

“Since the advent of cable news and the internet, the possibilities for transmitting information and entertainment have exploded. Colbert’s Talarico interview, for example, was posted on YouTube, where it already has more than 6 million views — far more than it probably would have received if not for this controversy. Politicians can compete for attention without government help….”

The Post’s subterfuge would be a legitimate argument except for the democracy-rotting condition that the paper is ignoring because it is part of it. That condition is the near total ideological monopoly of the entertainment industry, giving the Left—again, the Post and its pals—access to the controls of the powerful propaganda and indoctrination weapon television still is.