Amazon.com Pressured to Drump Trump

Amazon.com, the popular online retailer, is reportedly under pressure from shareholders to stop selling products associated with Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

According to the New York Post, a group claiming to represent 1,500 Amazon shareholders has asked CEO Jeff Bezos to end its marketing of Trump shirts, hats, ties and other products promoting the Trump campaign.

“This isn’t about politics: Donald Trump’s misogyny, racism and outright bigotry are dominating the political news cycle,” shareholder group UltraViolet said in a letter to Bezos.

The letter noted the continued presence of Donald Trump products “poses a risk to Amazon’s reputation” . . . (Read more from “Amazon.com Pressured to Drump Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska Legislature Passes Important Parental Rights Bill

The Alaska Legislature just passed a major piece of legislation that recognizes parental rights in education including a parent’s right to opt their children out of standardized testing . . .

Some of the pertinent language:

(a) A local school board shall, in consultation with parents, teachers, and school administrators, adopt policies to promote the involvement of parents in the school district’s education program. The policies must include procedures

(1) recognizing the authority of a parent and allowing a parent to object to and withdraw the child from a standards-based assessment or test required by the state; . . .

This doesn’t change Alaska’s standards which are essentially Common Core, but this is a win for parents who were having issues opting their students out of assessments and certain classes, like sex ed. This is something all states should do if they haven’t already. While parents have a natural right to opt their children out of assessments it is so much easier when the government cooperates with parents rather than oppose them. (Read more from “Alaska Legislature Passes Important Parental Rights Bill” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Court Orders Dad to Start Treating His 11-Year-Old Daughter as a Boy

Faced with two estranged parents in utter disagreement about their daughter’s wish to be a boy, a British Columbia Supreme Court judge has appointed the child a legal guardian to protect her interests.

The father not only wants his daughter to cease taking hormone blockers but also to cease all contact with transgender activists or transgender-friendly therapists.

Though the case is about whether the 11-year-old can give informed consent to such serious medical treatment, which is intended to delay the onset of female puberty, the judge appears to have already conceded the point by referring to the girl by her preferred, male, initials, J.K., and accepting her male self-identification.

In his ruling, Mr. Justice Ronald Skolrood declared that, “This case is really about J.K. and his role in determining his own future. In my view, these issues cannot be properly considered without J.K.’s direct participation.”

Her father, referred to as N.K., has persisted in referring to his daughter by her female name at birth, or P.K., in court documents, despite an earlier court order that he refer to her with male pronouns, name, and initials. (Read more from “Court Orders Dad to Start Treating His 11-Year-Old Daughter as a Boy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Harvard Law Professor Says Treat Conservative Christians Like Nazis

Liberals, stop being so defensive. That’s the message of Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet in a new post at Balkinization, titled “Abandoning Defensive Crouch Liberal Constitutionalism.” The problem, according to Tushnet, is that liberals have been too defensive when it comes to advancing their agenda in the courts.

Now that President Barack Obama has reshaped the federal judiciary, liberal causes can win easily in court. And now that Justice Antonin Scalia has died, “judges no longer have to be worried about reversal by the Supreme Court if they take aggressively liberal positions.”

Tushnet blames what he calls the “culture wars” on conservatives, and he says liberals should now make conservatives pay. “The culture wars are over; they lost, we won,” he writes in italics. Tushnet claims that conservatives “had opportunities to reach a cease fire, but rejected them in favor of a scorched earth policy.”

Since when have liberals been defensive? The scorched earth policy has been theirs. They’ve been the aggressors—they’ve been offensive. Conservatives have been defensive.

It seems hard to envision how conservatives could have declared a unilateral cease fire when they weren’t the ones firing in the first place. Liberals aggressively sought in the courts an unlimited abortion license, a redefinition of marriage, and now for transgender bathroom policies throughout the nation. Liberals haven’t been bashful to use the courts to reshape social policy when they couldn’t win at the polls. (Read more from “Harvard Law Professor Says Treat Conservative Christians Like Nazis” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

State Department Will Not Pursue Death Penalty Against Accused Benghazi Leader

Ahmed Abu Khatalla, the accused ringleader of the of the Benghazi terrorist attacks that killed four Americans including a U.S. ambassador, will not face the death penalty if found guilty, Justice Department officials announced Tuesday.

The decision was revealed in a filing to D.C.’s federal trial court and marks a victory for Khatalla’s attorneys who had pressed the government to nix the death penalty as a punishment should the Libyan militant be convicted at trial, the Associated Press reported . . .

U.S. investigators have labeled Khatalla as the central figure behind the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults on a State Department diplomatic compound that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department information management officer Sean Patrick Smith, and two other Americans.

“The department is committed to ensuring that the defendant is held accountable for his alleged role in the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission and annex in Benghazi that killed four Americans and seriously injured two others, and if convicted, he faces a sentence of up to life in prison,” Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said in a statement Tuesday, according to the Washington Post. (Read more from “State Department Will Not Pursue Death Penalty Against Accused Benghazi Leader” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pamela Geller: Immediately After Muslim Mayor Elected, London’s Iconic Buses Proclaim “Glory to Allah”

The Islamization of Britain made an immense advance this week, as a Muslim with extensive ties to jihadis and Islamic supremacists, Sadiq Khan, was elected mayor of London, just as London buses are set to carry ads proclaiming the “glory of Allah.”

It’s a sign of the times – and a sign of things to come. Is anyone really surprised? That a man such as Sadiq Khan, who has shared a platform with open Jew-haters, could still be elected mayor of London, is an indication of how far gone Britain already is. In Sadiq Khan’s campaign, his opponents brought up his close ties to jihadis, Islamic supremacists and Islamic Jew-haters as a blot on his record. Soon enough in Britain, however, that sort of thing will be a selling point for candidates appealing to an increasingly Muslim electorate.

The UK banned me from the country. It is already acting like a de facto Islamic state. Did anyone really think that the notoriously anti-Semitic UK would vote for Khan’s opponent, Zac Goldsmith — a Jew? London has already been overrun – voter fraud in Muslim precincts is rampant. Not that they will really needed it soon. London’s Muslim population is 1.3 million and growing.

The Muslims who voted for Sadiq Khan did not reject his extremist ties and supremacist rhetoric, dispelling the notion that most Muslims are moderates and do not adhere to the Sharia, or support extremism. Apparently, they are not “Uncle Toms,” as Sadiq likes to call moderate Muslims.

At the same time, many Jews were prohibited from voting. Even the Chief Rabbi of London was turned away – leading to the Chief Executive of one London borough having to resign. Innumerable voters throughout the London Borough of Barnet – where much of the British Jewish community lives today – were prevented from voting by a suspicious and never-explained “error” at the area’s polling stations. (Read more from “Pamela Geller: Immediately After Muslim Mayor Elected, London’s Iconic Buses Proclaim “Glory to Allah”” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Don’t Force America’s Daughters Into Combat

Not long ago, the Obama administration determined that women can enter all military combat occupations. Now the debate has quickly shifted to whether women can be forced into combat.

Suddenly, the exceptional qualifications and ambition of a few women seeking ground combat roles could have significant consequences for all women.

A proposal to “Draft America’s Daughters,” part of the National Defense Authorization Act, is headed for the House floor the week of May 16. The policy would require women between the ages of 18 and 26 to register for Selective Service, making them eligible to be called up—right along with young men—if Congress were to reinstate the draft.

Congress should act now to prohibit forcing women into combat, including through requiring them to register for Selective Service. Congress should also revisit the Obama administration’s decision to open all combat roles to women without exception, which increases pressure to include women in the draft. The rush to advance these policies ignores the military’s own research on the issue and leaves a number of critical questions unresolved.

Exceptions Denied

In 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta directed the military services to conduct reviews with the goal of integrating women into all combat occupations by January 2016. Service chiefs had until September 2015 to request exceptions.

The most extensive review was the Marine Corps’ Gender Integration Task Force, which evaluated mixed gender units in combat training activities over nine months. On 134 ground combat tasks, all-male units outperformed mixed units in 69 percent of the tasks. Mixed units outperformed male units in just two tasks. The findings showed significant differentials in performance between females and males. Top-performing females overlapped with low-performing males. Female training course completion rates lagged well behind men, and women’s injury rate was much higher.

Women’s increased risk of injury in combat-related tasks (especially load-bearing tasks that depend considerably on physiology) makes them more vulnerable when engaging the enemy. “Combat is not an equal opportunity for women because they don’t have an equal opportunity to survive,” says Jude Eden, who served in the Marine Corps but opposes opening combat roles to women. Women on the front lines would be especially at risk if captured by the enemy (consider the Islamic State’s brutalization of female prisoners in recent months).

The moral framework guiding Western policy for the use of force requires strategic choices to minimize casualties in combat. It is one thing for women to be drawn into combat incidentally or to be attached to a combat unit for a discrete functional mission. But it’s quite another to plan to send women into frontline ground combat knowing, as Eden says, “they don’t have an equal opportunity to survive.”

Combat Effectiveness or Social Goals?

The Marines’ evaluation of the combat effectiveness of mixed units led the commandant of the Marine Corps to recommend in September 2015 that some ground combat roles continue to be limited to men. That request was rebuffed, however, and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter declared in December that all military occupations, without exception, would be open to women as of Jan. 1, 2016.

Brushing past such military concerns was in step with a comment made by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey at the outset of the review period. As he told military commanders back in 2013, if a woman could not meet their units’ standards, they would have to justify why the standards need to be that high. Meanwhile, in May 2015, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus directed that one in four enlisted recruits in the Navy and Marine Corps should be women.

These instances raise questions about whether social goals have taken precedence over military objectives in the march to put women in combat. Moreover, the momentum to open all options for the few extraordinary women seeking to serve in ground combat is now propelling us toward a requirement that could affect all women.

Congress should prohibit forcing women into combat and should take a longer look at the blanket policy of women in all combat roles, prioritizing military effectiveness as it does so. Equality does not mean disregarding differences that are relevant to accomplishing the mission—especially when that mission is life or death.

Women in the armed forces have courageously served our nation with distinction, including during wartime. It does not do justice to the valor and sacrifice they have made in many different roles to suggest that women’s equality cannot be achieved without sending women into ground combat.

Women in Combat: May or Must?

While other arguments against including women in a draft can be made, some members of Congress and two federal court challenges already are seeking to exploit the opening of all combat roles to women to get a different result.

The combat exclusion was a significant factor in a 1981 Supreme Court case on registering women for Selective Service.

In Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court deferred to Congress, citing the combat distinction. “Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them,” Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority. “Congress was certainly entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers to raise and regulate armies and navies, to focus on the question of military need rather than ‘equity.’”

If the draft were reinstated in a future conflict and women were included, what would the consequences be for combat effectiveness, for individual women sent into frontline ground combat, for the men alongside them, or for families and society at large?

With such looming questions unanswered, Congress should prohibit forcing women into combat, including through Selective Service registration. And, since many voices are already citing the fact that women can serve in all combat posts to argue that women must register for the draft, Congress should also revisit the blanket policy of women in combat. (For more from the author of “Don’t Force America’s Daughters Into Combat” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Gives Christie Major Role in Planning for a Trump Administration

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump announced this earlier in the week. that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will lay the foundation for a potential Trump administration by leading Trump’s transition team.

The team’s goal is to ensure that when the Obama administration leaves office in January, his successor’s administration is fully operational.

” … it is really important that Trump has publicly named a transition chairman,” said Max Stier, who is chairman of the Partnership for Public Service. “Trump is demonstrating his understanding that he needs to prepare for the possibility that he will be governing at the same time as he is trying to win the campaign.”

Trump said in a statement, “Governor Christie is an extremely knowledgeable and loyal person with the tools and resources to put together an unparalleled transition team, one that will be prepared to take over the White House when we win in November.”

“I am grateful to Governor Christie for his contributions to this movement,” he said.

According to the statement, Christie would be “overseeing an extensive team of professionals preparing to take over the White House, and all that entails.”

“I am honored by the confidence being placed in me by Mr. Trump and look forward to putting together a first-rate team to assemble an administration to help best serve the president-elect and the nation,” Christie said.

Stier suggested that Christie would not be able to serve as Trump’s running mate or take on an active, full-time campaign role because of the time needed to devote to the transition team.

Christie, who had originally sought the GOP nomination, endorsed Trump after his campaign faltered.

The Washington Post noted Christie has been “a key adviser … behind the scenes.” It also noted that his selection as the transition team leader give Christie “influence in the selection of White House and administration staff and in the development of a president-elect’s first steps.” (For more from the author of “Trump Gives Christie Major Role in Planning for a Trump Administration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Projected Winners Announced in West Virginia Primaries

With the once-crowded Republican field winnowed down to presumptive nominee Donald Trump and likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton nearly 300 pledged delegates ahead of rival Bernie Sanders, the scene was set Tuesday for a West Virginia primary that would change little in the electoral landscape.

Though a default win for Trump was projected by the Associated Press with zero percent of the vote counted, the Democratic race took longer to tally after polls closed at 7:30 p.m. ET.

Early reports indicated a strong showing by Sanders as Clinton spent much of the last week attempting to walk back comments that hurt her among many voters in the state. NBC News projected Sanders the winner of the contest shortly after 8 p.m.

West Virginia has been in the news over the past several days following comments Clinton made regarding the coal industry. When the former first lady promised to “put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” many West Virginians — including elected officials and those who make their living in the industry — were incensed.

Logan Mayor Serafino Noletti went so far as to write a letter to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., asserting neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton were welcome in the small mining town. When the former president arrived for a rally anyway, he was met by vocal protests from upset locals.

According to ABC News’ preliminary exit polling, roughly 30 percent of Democratic voters told pollsters that their family included at least one coal worker.

While the results of Tuesday’s vote might have no direct impact on November’s general-election matchup, exit polling did provide a barometer of the state’s current mood. A clear majority — about 60 percent — of Democrats expressed concern about the nation’s economic future. That number is 50 percent higher than the party’s national average this election cycle. (For more from the author of “Projected Winners Announced in West Virginia Primaries” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump Receives Endorsement From Former Opponent

Former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal loves his country. He does not feel the same way toward Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. However, in an election where he — as with all Americans — must choose, he has done so, writing his endorsement for Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed headlined, “I’m voting for Trump, warts and all.”

“I think electing Donald Trump would be the second-worst thing we could do this November, better only than electing Hillary Clinton to serve as the third term for the Obama administration’s radical policies,” Jindal wrote. “I am not pretending that Mr. Trump has suddenly become a conservative champion or even a reliable Republican: He is completely unpredictable. The problem is that Hillary is predictably liberal.”

Clinton looms large in Jindal’s column.

“I have no idea what Mr. Trump might do,” Jindal wrote, “while Mrs. Clinton is predictable. Both are scary, the former less so.”

Jindal argued that an election is a choice.

“I do not pretend Donald Trump is the Reaganesque leader we so desperately need, but he is certainly the better of two bad choices,” he continued. “Hardly an inspiring slogan, I know. It would be better to vote for a candidate rather than simply against one.”

Last week, as Indiana voters were going to the polls to give Trump the victory that unraveled his opposition, Jindal indicated he could support Trump against Clinton and noted a Trump victory would require soul-searching on the part of conservatives.

“We conservatives have to go back and do a better job of explaining our beliefs and principles to the voters,” Jindal told Politico. “I think Donald Trump is tapped into the middle class anxieties when conservatives say they’re for limited government, entitlement reform, free trade.

“Donald Trump is not for those things and doing well in part because voters are responding to what he’s saying. He’s saying, look he’ll fight for them,” he said.

Jindal has said Trump is not a genuine conservative — that is, against big government.

“I don’t think he’s opposed to big government; I just think he wants to be the one running big government. I do think he’ll be better than Hillary Clinton,” he said.

Jindal characterized Trump in harsher terms in a piece written for CNN last fall.

“Donald Trump is a shallow, unserious, substance-free, narcissistic egomaniac,” he wrote then.

“Like all narcissists, Trump is insecure, weak and afraid of being exposed,” Jindal added.

“We face a choice,” he continued. “We can decide to win, or we can be the biggest fools in history and put our faith not in our principles, but in an egomaniac who has no principles.” (For more from the author of “Donald Trump Receives Endorsement From Former Opponent” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.