Last week, President Trump called off trade negotiations with Canada because the government of Ontario, one of the nation’s provinces, released a deceptively edited advertisement using former U.S. President Ronald Reagan to criticize American tariffs. It was the beginning of the Ontario provincial government’s public relations campaign in the U.S. opposing tariffs, which of course have been a prominent feature of Trump 2.0.
In a typically restrained response, Trump erupted in fury against the spot, using all caps to call the ad “FAKE” as he announced the suspension of trade negotiations with Canada. “Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED,” Trump wrote on his personal social media platform Truth Social.
John Tyler was our 10th President (1841-1845) and the first Vice-President to reach the White House via the death of his predecessor. That was the ill-starred William Henry Harrison, the oldest elected POTUS until our recent spate of geriatrics, who died shortly after being sworn in. Tyler is regarded as an obscure and rather dishonored President—he served in Jefferson Davis’s Cabinet during the Civil War, but his one big decision was a crucial one that took guts and audacity. The U.S. may not have survived without it.
As with many parts of the Constitution, the Founders were infuriatingly vague on the question of Presidential succession. It was unclear whether the VP was to serve as an acting President until a special election was held, or whether he became President for the rest of the dead President’s term. Tyler was a Democrat who ran on a ticket with a Whig President, so settling the issue promised to be a political battle that could have escalated into a dangerous crisis. Tyler didn’t wait for Congress to debate the matter: he just took the oath of office, said “I am the President at least until until the 1844 election,” and dared anyone to try to block him. Nobody did. That set “The Tyler Precedent,” and we should all say a silent prayer to John Tyler for it.
They are doing it, in great part, because their favorite party is lying about it too.
Professor Turley was making the rounds this morning on news stations trying to explain that the Insurrection Act is ambiguous enough to support a President’s judgment that an “insurrection” is occurring in a state when the governor or a state legislature refuses to request such support, and send in the Guard on his own authority. The professor also pointed out that even if Trump were blocked from doing so in a state, he clearly has the power to use other states’ National Guard units in the state that is resisting, if the other states agree. The description of the sanctuary cities and states as engaging in neo-Confederate nullification is quite accurate.
Meanwhile, the New York Times, leading its fellow travelers in Orwellian spin, is doing its damnedest to back the incipient Stars and Bars. Here (gift link), a biased lawyer writes that “No, Trump Can’t Deploy Troops to Wherever He Wants.” How is that for a false framing? But the Times published it anyway. Unethical quote: “Can presidents unleash the armed forces on their own people based on facts that they contrive?” Yeah, that scene above, where the Chicago police deliberately stood down, was “contrived.”
Then we have this consequentialist argument: “In 2020, Trump Intervened in Portland’s Protests. They Got Even Worse.” First, how do “protests” get “worse”? They were riots. Second, the mess in Portland didn’t involve attacks on Federal law enforcement and defiance of Federal law. Third, the Mongo Principle (No, don’t use force, it will only make him mad) is not a valid approach to law enforcement.
“The journalists need to get in shape. Frankly, I’m getting tired of looking at their writing and seeing such shit. It’s completely unacceptable.”
—-Veteran bloggress Ann Althouse, an occasionally red-pilled liberal Democrat, expressing disgust in a pots yesterday with the state of American journalism after reviewing the (as usual) biased and partisan coverage of the Trump Administration, this time in reporting on Sec. of War Hegseth’s meeting yesterday with the Pentagon’s generals and admirals.
I was going to write about that meeting and President Trump’s characteristic stream-of consciousness speech that followed it, then saw Althouse’s piece this morning naming what she felt were the worst headlines about the “Hegsethathon.”
Ann has expressed annoyance with biased coverage of Trump and his administrations before, but I think this is the first time she condemned the entire Axis media, to which I say, 1) “Good!” and 2) “What took her so long?” American journalists have overwhelmingly been avoiding ethical journalism since at least 2008, and my blog, unlike hers, blew the whistle, loudly, beginning in 2010. I suppose, as a liberal, Democrat law professor living and working in the bubble of Madison, Wisconsin who voted for Obama, Hillary and Biden, she can be forgiven for being blinded by confirmation bias and denial. Her commentariate has become far more conservative than she is (or was) in the interim. Ann should have become “sick of seeing such shit” long ago.
Hegseth’s meeting was attacked by the mainstream media from the second that it was announced. Why? A leader seeking cultural and organizational change should gather his or her commanders to ensure they understand their mission, goals and objectives. Much of the criticism was over the meeting demanding live, in person attendance. This objection demonstrates generational ignorance. A live meeting with everyone present and sitting together is and always will be the most powerful way to build group bonds and common purpose. I know this as a live theater director and a public speaker, and also as someone who knows the visceral differences from watching a baseball game or a movie in a crowd and seeing them alone or with one or two companions on a TV screen. We have a whole Zoom-warped generation who can’t grasp that, and their institutions and organizations will suffer as a result, probably forever.
There is evidence that former FBI director James Comey leaked information to a third party to ensure that it reached the news media—a legal breach—and lied to Congress. Is it strong enough to meet a beyond a reasonable doubt threshold? Maybe not.
He is still an ethics villain. Comey managed to make hash out of the 2016 election, first refusing to charge Hillary Clinton for a crime that he—falsely—claimed other, lesser officials had never been charged with, and then tried to make up for handing Hillary a “Get out of the negative headlines free” card by opening a new investigation even closer to the election sparked by the appearance of some of Hillary’s emails on her assistant’s boyfriend’s computer. Comey was the epitome of the “Deep State” embedded foe of President Trump—you will recall that he recently approved of the legend 8647, as in “Kill President Trump,” in a social media post. A a fan of ethical government and democracy, I am not sorry to see some adverse consequences coming Comey’s way. As a legal ethicist, I am dubious about the indictment.
“He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”
President Trump, in his eulogy for assassinated conservative activist Charley Kirk at the massive memorial service in Phoenix
Can a quote be both ethical and unethical at the same time? You have to hand it to Donald Trump: his statement above at the Kirk memorial service had progressive heads exploding all over the map, and some conservative heads too. It was a genuinely provocative line, rich with contradictory meanings and implications. Did the President intend it that way? Who knows? They will be arguing about Trump’s brain in history and psychology tomes for a hundred years. I find myself hearing Wilford Brimley’s voice echoing through my brain in his iconic scene from “Absence of Malice”: “Mr. Gallagher, are you that smart?” Except in this case, it’s “Mr. Trump.”
Of course the line triggered the Trump-Deranged into self-identification, as with this guy…
But Trump didn’t say he hated half the country. Now Joe Biden came a lot closer to doing that when he accused Republicans of being fascists who are existential threats to democracy, though it was in a national speech to the nation not a memorial service. (I think that’s worse, myself.) We can’t be sure whom Trump regards as his “opponent.” Those who want him dead, as about a quarter of all Democrats according to one poll? Those who tried to impeach him twice and put him in prison using contrived prosecutions? Those who call him Hitler? The journalists and pundits who have been lying about him since he was elected in 2016 and before? Continue reading →
“We’re all people of religion, but there are evil people. And we have to confront that. I just give my love and hope to the family of the young woman who was stabbed this morning or last night in Charlotte by a madman.”
—President Trumpyesterday in remarks at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., referring to the horrific random knife murder in Charlotte that was not considered newsworthy by the Axis media because it didn’t involve a gun, which would have been exploited to make more gun control demands, and didn’t involve a white person killing a black one, which would have bolstered the “America is racist” narrative.
I want to note that an “Ethics quote” is not the same as an ethical quote, but rather a statement that raises ethical issues that are worth pondering. This one raises many. Such as…
1. As one wag on Instapundit said this morning, “I guess now the legacy media will have to cover the story.” And, I hope, try to explain why an event with so many hot button issue touch points was deemed unworthy of national news for two weeks.
2. Issues include Black on white crime. Democrat-run big city violence as Trump raises the issue of federal force bolstering law enforcement. Lack of security on public transportation. Society’s handling of the mentally ill. The victim was a legal Ukrainian refugee, as the Left’s support of the Ukrainian (hopeless) war continues in the absence of logic and reality. The social activist-driven revolving door system of arrests, releases and mild or no punishment to reduce “over-incarceration.” And more…
The Axis is so consistent in condemning everything President Trump does that it is becoming difficult to define what is really right and wrong. “Who did it” is not a valid or reasonable basis for making the distinction, but I swear, the Left has been so relentless with its warping of language and standards that even I am getting confused.
The current question is this: “Is there anything wrong with re-naming the Defense Department the Department of War, or the War Department, which is what it was called for before 1947 without the mountains falling and the seas boiling?”
As usual, there is a substantial chance that this is Trump Trolling, as he tries to make people’s head explode. I can also conceive of some value to the name change. I see nothing wrong with the U.S. projecting an image of strength and of a nation that is not going to tolerate international outrages because it’s reluctant to use military force. Yet focusing on “defense” has its advantages too.
They are two sides of the same metaphorical coin, one seeming more aggressive (oh-oh! That pesky testosterone again!) and the other more typically feminine: making the priorities accommodation and compromise over conflict and violence.
Is there any basis for ruling Trump’s branding decision unethical? I don’t see one.
Verdict: President Trump abused his position, power and influence by weighing in on a private company’s choice of logo and continuing to make declarations about it as if it is any of his business or a proper matter of concern for the President of the United States.
…which means they are misleading, manipulative, and useless, except to be misleading and manipulative.
I just saw a Rasmussen Poll that measured Trump’s approval split at 49%-49%. Which side of that split would I belong on? I’m not sure I know. Hmmmmmm….
Do I approve of Trump’s character? Do I like the fact that someone like him is the symbol of the United States to the world? Do I think his conduct as President is likely to have a positive effect on the United States society and culture over the long term? Do I think his conduct as President is likely to have a positive effect on the office of the Presidency over the long term? Do I approve of his social media postings and his unrestrained outbursts on whatever topic engages him at a particular moment? Do I approve of his extreme narcissism, his cruelty, his misogyny, his exaggerations, his constant resort to ad hominem attacks?
Nonononononononononono! I do not approve. Not only that, but I don’t approve of anyone who does approve these aspects of Donald Trump.
Ethics Alarms 