Colorado Supreme Court yesterday became the first to declare former President Donald Trump ineligible to run for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, but the court immediately stayed its own order until the Supreme Court settles the issue for all time. With several Democratic operatives and allies trying this legal Hail Mary to remove the major threat to the party holding on to the Presidency, it was inevitable that SCOTUS would have to deal with the crack-brained theory eventually.

The reaction to the decision was something I’ve never seen before: the desperate Axis (the resistance, Democrats and the mainstream media) was giddy about the decision because it provides some hope that Joe Biden won’t have to face Trump in the 2024 election, while conservatives and Trump-supporting Republicans were high-fiving each other because they believe the decision provides smoking gun evidence that the Left is trying to win an election by keeping its most feared political opponent off the ballot “by any means necessary.” That certainly is the sense that was conveyed by Althouse’s mostly conservative (but not strongly Trump-supporting) commenters last night. Althouse called the 14th Amendment ploy a “wild legal theory.” Here are the first 19 comments (the 20th is too long, but it also rejects the decision…):

Continue reading →

Yes, it’s that time of year when Ethics Alarms will be announcing as many Best of… and Worst of…ethics awards as I get around to posting. A bit of background, in case you rely on the New York Times for your Washington. D.C. news (the Times up to now has ignored the embarrassing—to Democrats–saga completely):

The American Spectator was the first to reveal that a staffer for Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md) regularly posted images and videos on Twitter (“X”) of himself having sex with a male partner. One such video was particularly provocative: the sex show was captured in a conference room in the Hart Senate Office Building, where his boss the Senator’s office is located. The star is shown naked except for a jock strap, on on all fours, facing away from the camera, with a cartoon of the Capitol Dome covering his posterior. The Daily Caller then posted the video, leading the Capitol police to investigate (Prof. Turley explains that the video may be evidence of a crime).

It wasn’t exactly a case requiring Columbo, since the staffer had made the video publicly available. He was identified as Cardin aide Aidan Maese-Czeropski, 24, and was quickly fired in a terse, “we don’t want to talk about it” statement from Cardin’s office.

Continue reading →

This supercut of Democrats and their mainstream media minions (well, and Liz Cheney, of course) flogging Big Lie #3 ( “Trump Is A Fascist/Hitler/Dictator/Monster”) is a really funny, or, if you are a member of the Democratic Party, sad. If someone you know thinks it’s genuinely scary, however, try to get them some help.

Behold…

Interesting! FireFox, my browser, is blocking this video from posting, though embed codes just like it have always worked. I’m sorry, you’ll just have to go here to see what this post is about:

https://news.grabien.com/story-media-warn-if-trump-s-re-elected-every-bad-thing-they-can-possibly-ima

Incidentally, that once responsible, respected Presidential historian who keeps showing up is Michael Beschloss, whose EA dossier is here.

It is stressful and irritating to have so many ethics stories dancing in my head like sugarplums, so I’m going to indulge myself in a quick exercise to get them out there and make room for the incoming stampede….

1. Yes, Michelle Goldberg really is this clueless. The scary part is that there are so many like her. The most irritating Times opinion writer—-not the worst, now, there are worse than her, like Jamelle Bouie, Paul Krugman and the inimitable Charles Blow, but she’s the one who irritates me the most—put her name under an op-ed titled, “What’s Driving Former Progressives to the Right?” Gee, what a mystery! What could it be? “Liberals and leftists have lots of excellent policy ideas, but rarely articulate a plausible vision of the future,” she decides. What are those “excellent policy ideas”? Goldberg points to dismantling “capitalism, the carceral state, heteropatriarchy [and] the nuclear family” and concludes that doing these marvelous things are just too darn hard for the faint-hearted.

It’s easier to be conservative, see: “The right has an advantage in appealing to dislocated and atomized people: It doesn’t have to provide a compelling view of the future. All it needs is a romantic conception of the past, to which it can offer the false promise of return. When people are scared and full of despair, “let’s go back to the way things were” is a potent message, especially for those with memories of happier times.”

Yeah, that must be it, Michelle.

It couldn’t possibly be that after assessing the state of the nation since 2008 and watching the collapse of the education system, rot in the cities, a rise in racial preferences, rampant inflation and an out-of-control national debt, chaos at the border, riots across the country launched by a Marxist scam group, the explosion of state-driven censorship efforts in the name of fighting “misinformation,” the transformation of journalism into a Leftist propaganda network, the return of anti-Semitism, the gradual destruction of women’s sports by trans-madness, and—there is a lot more—cutting to the chase, this…

…that some progressives have done what rational adults do when they find that something they really wanted to work doesn’t: they try something else.

Nah. It couldn’t be that...

Continue reading →

The Crimson independently reviewed the published allegations. Though some are minor — consisting of passages that are similar or identical to Gay’s sources, lacking quotation marks but including citations — others are more substantial, including some paragraphs and sentences nearly identical to other work and lacking citations.

Some appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.

Continue reading →

Some semi-alert Harvard fundraiser decided to tweak this letter to emphasize supporting students rather than the institution itself. I rule that deceitful, but it’s such an obvious and pathetic ploy that the chances of it fooling anyone with an IQ above 80—most, though not all, Harvard alums probably can top 100— are slim.

This year-end fundraising appeal arrives in my mailbox the same week that the school’s leadership unanimously supported a president who embarrassed herself, the school and its alumni in a public forum. It comes after Harvard gave tacit approval to students threatening the welfare and educational opportunities of Jewish students by refusing to take any action against other students extolling terrorism targeting Jews, and espousing intafada and genocide. While a lesser Ivy League institution, UPenn, correctly dismissed its president who made almost exactly the same tone-deaf and cowardly statements before Congress that Harvard’s Claudine Gay did, saying that whether calls for the death of Jews constitutes harassment and a violation of the school’s conduct code depends on their “context,” Harvard’s governing body submitted an absurd-on-its-face endorsement of Gay, stating “Our extensive deliberations affirm our confidence that President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing.”

Yes, the most prestigious university in the U.S., among all its scholars and graduates, can’t find a better leader than one unable to explain the limits of free speech on campus, or do better under questioning than to repeat verbatim the canned answers provided by lawyers as if she were reciting “The Wreck of the Hesperus.”

Who believes that? What informed graduate not yet in the throes of senility doesn’t comprehend that the vote of confidence means, “We chose this woman because she was black and a DEI hun, and not having black alums and woke faculty rebel is more important to us than showing that we reject anti-Semitism and care sufficiently about maintaining Harvard’s reputation. “

If there was doubt that President Gay could do anything short of running naked with a bloody machete through Harvard Square and keep her job, she was also permitted to pilot “Back to the Future’s” Delorean and remove plagiarized sections of her nearly 30 year-old PhD dissertation, though it was in its illicit form when the document won her the doctorate. Although the Harvard Crimson has supported Gay (on the theory that Harvard should never do anything demanded by evil, racist Republicans) it also concluded in an investigation…

The Crimson independently reviewed the published allegations. Though some are minor — consisting of passages that are similar or identical to Gay’s sources, lacking quotation marks but including citations — others are more substantial, including some paragraphs and sentences nearly identical to other work and lacking citations.

Some appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.

Continue reading →