Tag Archives: ethics

Revisionist History

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that President Joe Biden (D) recently identified his wife as a prior Vice President of the United States in another of his…misspeaks.

Now his White House staff is rewriting history by altering the transcript of the speech in which said the thing.

And I’m deeply proud of the work she is doing as First Lady with Joining Forces initiative she started with Michelle Obama when she [I] was Vice President and now carries on

This is especially invidious dishonesty. The Progressive-Democrats are trying to rewrite history to erase events that occurred. Pretending to correct a transcription error—leaving the line-through of the putative error and supplying the not-actually-said insertion is naked revisionism, not a simple correction.

A proper move, an honest move, would have been to create an addendum saying “What the President meant to say….”

History is how we know what happened and how we got to where we are. Falsifying history is an attack on all of us.

It cannot be tolerated by us American citizens.

Progressive-Democrats’ Continued Assault on our 2nd Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

Especially cynically, President Joe Biden (D) is using the tragedy of the Sacramento, CA, shooting—other people’s blood—to press his assault on our 2nd Amendment.

Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability.

Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Where in our Constitution is the Federal government given the authority to limit the weapons us American citizens are allowed to have and to carry? Here, for Biden’s edification, is the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to have a population that is armed and that understands its arms and so can muster at need to defend our nation, every American has the right to keep and bear Arms, entirely unfettered by Government. Nowhere in that Amendment is there any authority of Government to dictate to us citizens the kind of Arms each of us can keep and carry.

Beyond that, the Supreme Court has already ruled, in District of Columbia v Heller and in McDonald v City of Chicago that the Amendment means precisely what it says: the right to have and to carry firearms is an individual right, with the addition (incorporation) that State governments also cannot (not may not) infringe on this right.

Repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability? Based on what actual theory of law, gun rights, or other? Biden continues to offer no rationale other than his desired gun grab for his abuse. Gun manufacturers have no more control over the uses to which purchasers put their product than have car manufacturers, knife manufacturers, baseball bat manufacturers, hammer manufacturers, or pillows.

That last isn’t me being facetious or sarcastic. Suffocation is the third most common technique for murder.

Biden doesn’t care about any of that. He just wants our firearms; he just wants us disarmed.

Some Questions

Posted on by
Reply

Then-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden was asked some questions by Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI) regarding Biden son Hunter and Biden’s relationship with Hunter’s “business” dealings.

  • How could former Vice President Biden look any Ukrainian official (or any other world leader) in the face and demand action to fight corruption?
  • Did this glaring conflict of interest affect the work and efforts of other US officials who worked on anti-corruption measures?
  • Did Burisma, its owner, or representatives receive special access to, or treatment from, US agencies or officials because of Hunter Biden’s role on the board of directors?
  • Was there anything corrupt or unethical about the financial transactions between Hunter Biden and Burisma?
  • How did State Department officials responsible for promoting anti-corruption measures in Ukraine react to Hunter Biden joining Burisma’s board of directors?
  • Exactly when, and for what reasons, did the US government decide to condition a $1 billion loan guarantee for Ukraine on the termination of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin?
  • What was the reaction within the Obama administration when the replacement prosecutor general, Yuri Lutsenko, closed the case investigation of Burisma and its owner? Did Vice President Biden and other US government officials believe that justice had been served and their anti-corruption efforts were successful?
  • Why did you meet with Devon Archer at the White House on April 16, 2014? What was discussed? Did you discuss anything related to Ukraine, Hunter Biden, or Burisma?
  • Were you aware that Devon Archer joined the board of Burisma six days later?
  • Were you aware that Burisma’s owner, Mykoloa Zlochevsky, was generally viewed as a corrupt oligarch and that his London bank account containing $23 million had been seized by British officials only 15 days before Hunter Biden joined the board of a company he owned?
  • Was Hunter Biden aware that British officials had seized Zlochevsky’s bank account?
  • When did you first become aware of Zlochevsky’s and Burisma’s reputations for corruption?
  • Do you believe Zlochevsky and Burisma are corrupt?
  • Were you aware in April 2014 that Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma?
  • When did you first become aware that Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma?
  • When did you first become aware of how much Hunter Biden was being compensated by Burisma?
  • Why do you believe Burisma recruited and paid Archer and your son to be on its board?
  • What skills or knowledge do you believe Hunter Biden possesses that qualified him to be on Burisma’s board and receive $50,000 to $166,000 per month for his and his partner’s services?
  • What exactly had Shokin done that caused you to threaten to withhold $1 billion in desperately needed aid from Ukraine if President Poroshenko didn’t fire him?
  • What do you know about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China?
  • What do you know about financial benefits your brothers and sister-in-law have obtained because of their relationship to you?

Biden ran away from answering them at the time. Just the News has some updates to those questions.

  • In April 2014, you gave a speech in Kiev calling for Ukraine to expand its natural gas production, Burisma’s core business. In private emails, Hunter Biden and Archer took credit for the language in the speech. Why did you make the request and did your son or his business partner have anything to do with it? (NEW)
  • State Department officials have testified your son’s work for Burisma while you oversaw [as vice president] Ukraine policy created the appearance of a conflict of interest and they further wrote in a classified email in 2016 that the conflict had undercut US anticorruption efforts in Ukraine. How do you respond to those criticisms? (NEW)
  • A 2017 series of memos referred to a Chinese business deal your son was involved in that reserved 10% equity for the “big guy.” What did you know about it and were you that “big guy?” (NEW)
  • Emails on your son’s laptop now in the hands of the FBI refer to shared accounts or bills between you and him. Did your son ever give your any money, gift or financial benefit from his business dealings? (NEW)

Will now-President Joe Biden (D) continue to run away from them? Will today’s press continue to ignore or spike them?

Yewbetcha and yewbetcha.

NATO Member Nations’ “Commitment”

Posted on by
Reply

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has gotten NATO members to step up their military budgets. Or so is the hopeful assessment of those member nation governments’…claims.

NATO members outside the US are set to boost their military spending following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to alliance Secretary-General [and former Norway Prime Minister] Jens Stoltenberg and pledges from member countries.

However [emphasis added].

Only eight countries, including the US, already cross the 2% threshold, according to NATO’s report, a decline from the previous annual report, in which 11 countries met the target.

And

The percentages are subject to changes in both defense budgets and to economic activity, which has been buffeted by the coronavirus pandemic over the past two years.

Indeed. There’s always an excuse for walking away from an inconvenient commitment.

Stoltenberg, as cited by The Wall Street Journal, said:

…it is hard for governments to allocate more money for defense. “But when we see a new security reality, we all realize the need to invest in our security,” he said.

No, it’s not hard at all. Either the nations’ governments honor their commitments to defend each other, either the nations’ governments honor their obligation to defend their own people (which is enhanced—or would be—by that mutual defense commitment), or they do not. The only hard part is finding the moral courage actually to do what they say they will do. The rest is just allocation of monies.

On that note, this:

But Germany and other countries that fall short have recently announced new plans to increase military spending following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24.

Germany is a prime example of this. During the Trump administration, then-Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged to increase Germany’s military spending to 2% of GDP or more, and thereby honor Germany’s commitment to that 2% threshold—a commitment Germany had been dishonoring since the NATO-wide commitment’s inception in 2014. Then Germany continued to dishonor its commitment under Merkel: the budget she submitted next after her commitment to Trump welched anew; her budget allocated less than 1.6% of GDP to Germany’s military.

Now Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz has made the Merkel commitment, but there’s no reason to believe he has any more intention than Merkel had of honoring the promise.

Those other 20+ countries who’ve been dishonoring their commitments all along? Sure. Italy already has walked away again; the others likely will simply be quiet about their continued decision to not spend on military needs.

There’s always an excuse.

Transparency in Schools

Posted on by
Reply

Florida now has a significant measure of some.

As a part of the “Year of the Parent,” a commitment [Florida Governor Ron (R)] DeSantis has made to prioritize parental rights, DeSantis signed HB 1467, which includes several protections for parents, such as requiring school districts to allow parents to review all books in the school library, all required classroom book lists, and any instructional materials teachers use.

And

The new law requires school districts convening for the purpose of selecting instructional materials to post meeting notices and make them open to the public. They must also provide access to all materials at least 20 days prior to the school board taking official action on instructional materials, according to the new law. The Department of Education will also be required to publish a list of materials that have been removed or discontinued by school boards as a result of an objection and disseminate the list to school districts for their consideration.

Transparency—what a concept. We all still need, though, a resumption of the practice of parents occasionally sitting on a class their children are taking.