Law & Law Enforcement

Banning Thoughts, Positions and Ideas in Higher Education Is Unethical and Unconstitutional….But Is Cultural and Values Surrender the Only Alternative?

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Greg Lukianoff is the president and chief executive of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which has taken over the non-partisan role of First Amendment protector that the ACLU abandoned over a decade ago. In an essay for the New York Times titled, “This Is No Way to Run a University” (gift link), he easily smashes some low hanging conservative fruit: Texas A&M University introducing policy changes aimed at a sweeping review of course materials aimed at purging state disapproved assertions about about race and gender ( according to a bill passed last spring by the Texas Legislature) from woke curricula.

The bill is almost certainly unconstitutional as state forbidden speech. Lukianoff highlights the fact that the law was interpreted at Texas A&M as mandating the elimination of some Plato works from a philosophy course on how classical ethical concepts apply to contemporary social problems, including race and gender. That is clearly a ridiculous result. The free speech activist writes in part,

“Texas A&M seems to have concluded that the safest way to handle the ideas contained in a classic text is to bury them. This is no way to run an institution of higher education. University administrators and state lawmakers are saying, in effect, that academic freedom won’t protect you if you teach ideas they don’t like. Never mind that decades ago, the Supreme Court described classrooms as the very embodiment of the “marketplace of ideas”: “Our nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us, and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom…Within the Texas Tech University system, which has more than 60,000 students, a Dec. 1 memo warned faculty members not to “promote or otherwise inculcate” certain specific viewpoints about race and sex in the classroom. These include concepts like “One race or sex is inherently superior to another”; “An individual, by virtue of race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive”; and “Meritocracy or a strong work ethic are racist, sexist or constructs of oppression.” The point isn’t that these concepts should just be accepted or go unchallenged; it’s that challenging them through a robust give-and-take is what universities are for.”

Continue reading →

A Confederacy of Dunces at the Golden Globes

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

The sock drawer isn’t small enough not to keep me from watching the annual Golden Globes broadcast, the parade of awards from people I don’t know or respect to performers I’ve barely heard of for shows I haven’t seen. Nonetheless, Hollywood (and others) managed to disgrace itself once again, reminding us that the artists who make our mass entertainment have the critical thinking skills of paper clips.

Once again the “Hollywood progs” (the name used by critics too genteel to call them “Hollywood assholes”) promoted the misguided latest woke cause. Last year it was the anti-Israel position insisting that nation should stop fighting Hamas and let the terrorists re-stock for the next massacre. This year, stars were wearing the fatuous anti-ICE pin, “Be Good.” Yeah, let’s all demand open borders, interfere with law enforcement, use our cars to block I.C.E operations, resist arrest, nearly run down and officer and get shot! Oh-oh, Sidney Wang is demanding a word…

Yeah, we know, Inspector.

We also know now that the late neighborhood open-borders fan was not good, as she was a contributor to Black Lives Matter, signature significance for someone who supports anti-white racism, lies (Michael Brown was murdered, you know!), riots, anti-law enforcement violence, dishonest news and scammers.

But never mind! The ACLU, among other principle-free organizations including communist groups, funded the creation and distribution of that tiny salute to idiocy. Talk about minds: the ACLU has genuinely lost theirs, along with any claim to respectability and credibility. The organization used to stand for free speech. Now it is deliberately using its reputation and resources to mislead the public into thinking Good was engaging in it by blocking law enforcement and defying the law.

Continue reading →

It’s Reassuring To Know I’m Not The Only One With Hopelessly Trump Deranged Facebook Friends…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

One of Ethics Alarms’ five commenters, indeed one whom I have had the pleasure to meet in person, took the plunge I will not take and wrote a Facebook post focusing on the Minneapolis I.C.E. shooting, noting that so many critics of the agent involved are displaying ignorance regarding the kinds of instant decisions “first-responders” must make in unpredictable and dangerous situations.

Since his was, typical of his contributions here, persuasive, measured, articulate and non-confrontational, one might assume that the responses to his post might reflect thoughtful consideration. In most cases, one would be wrong in that assumption.

One bright commenter wondered why the agent who fired on I.C.E.-defying protester Good didn’t “shoot out a tire” as her car came at him. Another analogized the Good scenario to this: “So when a masked man with no identification breaks down your door in the wrong house, brandishing a gun and yells at your terrified wife to drop to the ground and it takes her 5 seconds to understand the situation as she is frozen in fear, then turns to run it is perfectly fine for her to get 3 headshots because she might have had a weapon?”

I don’t know how it is possible to respond to someone who thinks that is a valid argument, except with the “Cheers” classic. “What color is the sky on your planet?”

Continue reading →

Just Because She Can’t Be Sued For It Doesn’t Make Hillary’s Latest Shameless Lie Less Damning

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

My sympathy for Hillary Clinton has finally run out.

For a long time, I have wanted to give Clinton every bit of leeway imaginable since her fluky, statistical anomaly Electoral College loss to Donald Trump in 2016. It’s an ethicist thing; the Golden Rule is strong here. What must it feel like to be that close to achieving your dream and to have it yanked from your grasp at the last moment? Oh-oh…I’m making Hillary sound like Moonlight Graham.

Still, I can understand why she has been so bitter and angry ever since. On the other hand, to go from “Field of Dreams” to “The Godfather”: this is the life she has chosen. “Politics ain’t beanbag.” It’s been 10 years. Time to grow the hell up.

Hillary’s latest outburst of Trump Hate—always wrongly placed because her own ineptitude, corruption and foolishness lost her that 2016 election—-came on the anniversary of Teddy Roosevelt’s death—wait, no, that was the worst thing that ever happened on a January 6th, but Hillary was using the date to misrepresent the stupid January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. Clinton posted a comment on X, declaring, “Five years ago today, Donald Trump urged his supporters to attack Congress and the Capitol over a proven lie.”

Continue reading →

Eww! Who Wants To Get In A Pool With Those Icky White People? [Expanded…With A Song!]

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I would really love to hear one of the woke DEI hypocrites in my life try to defend that flyer, promoting a program in Eugene, Oregon, another state, like Minnesota, where rampant bias has lowered the average IQ by double figures. It reads,  “We invite BIPOC youth to join us where they are at being comfortable in the water. Whether working on increasing water safety skills or pursuing lifeguard certification, this cohort is here to support your goals. Funded by the community safety payroll tax in partnership with the Youth Empowerment Program.”

“To join us where they are at being comfortable ” sounds like Ebonics, or perhaps English as written by the Somalis who run the “Learing Center” in Minnesota.

Or does it suggest that “BIPOC” youths are more comfortable in the water when they don’t have to be around those icky whites?

Continue reading →

Further Ethics Observations On the I.C.E. Shooting In Minneapolis…#1: The Right and Wrong Isn’t In Question [Updated and Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 56 Comments

The Trump Administration, I.C.E., and those standing for the enforcement of the law are in the right, with the ethics of this incident and its context entirely on their side. The pro-open borders Left, including the “resistance,” radical progressives (but I repeat myself…) and the Democrats as well as the leadership of sanctuary states and cities, are entirely wrong in theory, practice and conduct. The group in the wrong, which includes much of the news media, is primarily responsible for the tragic death of Renee Nicole Good. However, she was part of that group herself, and bears some of the responsibility for her own death.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week (On That Fanciful “International Law” Thingy): Konstantin Klein

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

“All the bleating about “international law” shows just how completely deluded some of our elites have become. International law was a pleasant fiction that lasted for a few decades…It was never real. Laws are based on submission to an overarching authority backed by force. There is no such international authority and even if you view the UN as one, it does not have the ability to use force against those who violate “international law”…

—Someone named Konstantin Klein on Twitter/”X.” I have no idea who the hell he is, and I could have just as easily said that myself, but I’ve been waiting for someone else to point exactly this out, because it is true..

As a general rule, those criticizing the U.S. action in Venezuela based on “international law” don’t know what international law is, and those who criticize the seizing of Maduro and his wife who do know what international law is are deliberately misleading those who don’t. Why hasn’t the new media clarified the issue? Well, 1) it would undermine the Axis’s anti-Trump narrative and 2) most journalists are lazy and not too bright.

On The View yesterday, Sunny Hostin, who appeals to her own authority frequently because she is a lawyer and was once a prosecutor, again proved she was an affirmative action botch by her law school (Notre Dame) by showing beyond a reasonable doubt that she’s an idiot. According to her, the Trump administration arresting Maduro and extraditing him the United States was a “kidnapping,” “100 percent Illegal,” and akin to “piracy.” Piracy? Then she played the frayed international law card, babbling “And international law doesn’t allow it unless there is — unless Congress declares war, and Congress did not do at. So, this country was founded on the premise of the balance of power. Right? So, you have a checks and balances. So, you have co-equal powers — co-equal branches of power. So, you have the Judicial Branch and then you have the Executive Branch, which the president is a part of, and then you have, of course, the Legislative Branch and that’s Congress. And they are supposed to check each other!”

Psst, Sunny! International law doesn’t “allow” or disallow anything. The United States was actually founded on the premise that the people who lived here wanted to decide on and enforce their own laws and not be subject to foreign rule.

Continue reading →

AI Weighs In On The Maduro Operation

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Before I finish Part 2 of On Maduro’s Arrest, the Ethics Dunces and Villains Are All In Agreement: What Does This Tell Us? , it is worth noting that one analyst posed the question, “Was it illegal for Trump to arrest Maduro?” to the AI bots ChatGPT and Grok.

ChatGPT, sounding, the inquirer notes, like a typical left-biased law professor, said that the arrest was illegal. It also wrongly stated that Maduro had been legitimately elected and adopted the positions of “international experts” as well as the United Nations Charter.

Grok, however, pronounced the arrest legal, citing the Venezuelan dictator’s illegitimate election, his federal indictment, and the power of the President, as Commander in Chief, to execute criminal warrants abroad.

Just now I asked Google’s bot the same question. It refused to answer, saying only that “The legality of the U.S. operation to capture Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, is a subject of intense debate, with most international legal experts considering it a violation of international law, while U.S. authorities defend it as a law enforcement action.”

On Maduro’s Arrest, the Ethics Dunces and Villains Are All In Agreement: What Does This Tell Us? [PART I]

/ Jack Marshall / 29 Comments

The headline is a rhetorical question.

Every now and then—the last was the assassination of Charlie Kirk—all the masks come off and anyone capable of objectivity can see exactly who the unethical, untrustworthy and dishonest among us are. Unfortunately, most people are not capable of objectivity, because bias makes you stupid. One would think, however, that at least those who present themselves to the public as skilled and independent analysts would take some care not to expose their double standards, lack of integrity and hypocrisy for all to see. One would be wrong to think that, as the video compilation above vividly demonstrates.

But why, oh why, do otherwise intelligent people continue to trust these hacks?

Well, you can decide whether that is a rhetorical question or not.

Meanwhile, here is the first part of an incomplete collection of telling reactions to the U.S.’s perfectly executed incursion into Venezuela to remove an illegitimate ruler and his wife who were both under U.S. indictment.

1. Two lawyer bloggers, Ann Althouse and Jonathan Turley, who I respect and often reference here, made it clear—Turley a bit more expressly than Ann—that the U.S. action was legal and justified. Althouse went back over her previous comments on Maduro—gee, why didn’t Jen Psaki do that?—to find her expressing sympathy with the plight of Venezuelans and the absence of U.S. action, as in her discovery of a post from 2019:

When Trump was pleading with the Venezuelan military to support Juan Guaido, I wrote: “I was surprised that on the channel I was watching — Fox News — the analysis after the speech was about the 2020 presidential campaign…. People in Venezuela are suffering. They’re starving. We need to help. I thought Trump was trying to get something done, but the news folk rush to talk about the damned campaign, as if that’s what sophisticated, savvy people do. I found it offensive.”

Turley has posted twice already explaining that the action was legally justified, with some other useful analysis today, including a pointed reference to Axis hypocrisy:

…Some of us had written that Trump had a winning legal argument by focusing on the operation as the seizure of two indicted individuals in reliance on past judicial rulings, including the decisions in the case of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and General Dan Caine stayed on script and reinforced this narrative. Both repeatedly noted that this was an operation intended to bring two individuals to justice and that law enforcement personnel were part of the extraction team to place them into legal custody. Rubio was, again, particularly effective in emphasizing that Maduro was not the head of state but a criminal dictator who took control after losing democratic elections.

However, while noting the purpose of the capture, President Trump proceeded to declare that the United States would engage in nation-building to achieve lasting regime change. He stated that they would be running Venezuela to ensure a friendly government and the repayment of seized U.S. property dating back to the government of Hugo Chávez.

… [Trump]is the most transparent president in my lifetime with prolonged (at times excruciatingly long) press conferences and a brutal frankness about his motivations. Second, he is unabashedly and undeniably transactional in most of his dealings. He is not ashamed to state what he wants the country to get out of the deal.

In Venezuela, he wants a stable partner, and he wants oil.

Chávez and Maduro had implemented moronic socialist policies that reduced one of the most prosperous nations to an economic basket case. They brought in Cuban security thugs to help keep the population under repressive conditions, as a third fled to the United States and other countries.

After an extraordinary operation to capture Maduro, Trump was faced with socialist Maduro allies on every level of the government. He is not willing to allow those same regressive elements to reassert themselves.

The problem is that, if the purpose was regime change, this attack was an act of war, which is why Rubio struggled to bring the presser back to the law enforcement purpose. I have long criticized the erosion of the war declaration powers of Congress, including my representation of members of Congress in opposition to Obama’s Libyan war effort.

The fact, however, is that we lost that case. Trump knows that. Courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offensives against other nations. In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress. They were also silent when Obama vaporized an American under this “kill list” policy without even a criminal charge. So please spare me the outrage now.

My strong preferences for congressional authorization and consultation are immaterial. The question I am asked as a legal analyst is whether this operation would be viewed as lawful. The answer remains yes.

A couple items in that analysis warrant special attention, like…

  • “[Trump]is the most transparent president in my lifetime.” That is absolutely true, yet the narrative being pushed by the unscrupulous Axis is that he is a habitual liar of epic proportions.
  • “….most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress.” Indeed, this is the gold standard of double standards that should be shaken in the faces of the reflex Trump-haters like a terrier shakes a rat.

2. 2024’s Ethics Hero of the Year Elon Musk called the elimination of Maduro “a win for the world.” Well, the Good Guys of the world, anyway. Russia, China, Iran and Cuba, as well as neighboring South American leftist states like Columbia and Brazil and drug cartel-run states like Mexico, condemned Trump’s action. Gee, wouldn’t that collection provide the Mad Left a big clue regarding the distribution of bad Guys and Good Guys on this issue? No, because to the Trump Deranged and the anti-Americans, wherever Trump is automatically is the House Where Evil Dwells.

Continue reading →

Compelled Speech, Trick or Treat, and Sex Offenders

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

A Missouri statute stated:

“Any person required to register as a sexual offender … shall be required on October thirty-first of each year to: Avoid all Halloween-related contact with children; Remain inside his or her residence between the hours of 5 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. unless required to be elsewhere for just cause, including but not limited to employment or medical emergencies; Post a sign at his or her residence stating, “No candy or treats at this residence”; Leave all outside residential lighting off during the evening hours after 5 p.m.“

Sanderson v. Hanaway, decided yesterday by Eighth Circuit Judge Jane Kelly and joined by Judges James Loken and Ralph Erickson, struck down the part of the law that required the sign as “compelled speech,” a First Amendment violation. Using the “strict scrutiny” test that requires a compelling state interest and a provision that is “narrowly structured” to minimize the burden on individual rights, the Court found the mandatory sign provision unnecessary and unreasonable given the law’s other requirements.

I agree. The sign mandate amounted to a required “I am a registered sex offender” declaration. On Halloween, that kind of message is likely to attract a lot worse “tricks” than toilet paper on some trees. Ethics Alarms has visited this issue repeatedly, most recently in May of 2025, but the harassment and persecution of sex offenders already raises serious ethical questions, including “pre-crime.” The whole law seems like gratuitous virtue-signaling using an already persecuted group as a cheap target. The rest of the law, however, was upheld.

An amusing note on the Trump Derangement front: even a legal report on a Missouri Halloween law managed to be twisted into a justification for an anti-Trump slap. “This is good news for Trump, but it would have been hilarious to see him forced to put that sign outside of the White House,” writes a commenter at The Volokh Conspiracy.

What assholes these people are….