US Officials Criticize Turkey After Erdogan’s Security Forces’ Violent Attack on DC Protesters

/0 Comments/in , /by

U.S. officials strongly criticized the Turkish government after video appeared to show its president’s security forces pushing past police and violently breaking up a protest outside their diplomatic residence in Washington.

Attacking the small group of protesters with their fists and feet, men in dark suits and others were recorded repeatedly kicking one woman as she lay curled on a sidewalk. Another wrenches a woman’s neck and throws her to the ground. A man with a bullhorn is repeatedly kicked in the face. In all, nine people were hurt.

The clash happened at the Turkish ambassador’s residence Tuesday as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrived after a White House meeting with President Donald Trump. Video shows people pushing past police to confront a small group of protesters across the street in Sheridan Circle. (For more from the author of “US Officials Criticize Turkey After Erdogan’s Security Forces’ Violent Attack on DC Protesters” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Communication Commission Takes Steps to Undo Obama-Era Net Neutrality

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 Thursday to start a process of undoing internet rules, commonly known as net neutrality, promulgated by the Obama-era FCC.

Undoing the 2015 Open Internet Order would “encourage more investment in broadband [and] more innovation,” James Gattuso, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an interview.

The order did two things. First, Gattuso said, it “declared all providers of broadband service to be common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which allows extensive regulation of “telecommunications services.”

This means that “the FCC got virtually unlimited authority to regulate [internet providers],” Gattuso said. Using this self-created authority, the FCC then imposed net neutrality restrictions on broadband providers. These rules essentially ban any unequal treatment of data being sent on the web. Thus, blocking or slowing content is banned, as is “paid prioritization,” effectively prohibiting discounts and premium pricing.

Making it worse, the ambiguity of the rules mean that providers end up going to the FCC for permission each time their service changes. “Every time [broadband service providers] do something, they have to go to the FCC and ask, ‘Does this violate any of the rules?’” Gattuso said.

The 2015 rule, Gattuso said, also banned practices that “unreasonably” limit consumer choice, or the ability of content providers such as Google or Netflix to make their offerings available to consumers.

The vote Thursday will commence a public comment period, which will allow Americans to weigh in on the decision to undo the 2015 Open Internet Order rules.

Ajit Pai, the FCC’s chairman who President Donald Trump appointed in January, said he believes in the free market rather than government control of the internet. Pai also said he wants the FCC to have more of a “light touch” in regard to regulations.

Mike Needham, chief executive officer of Heritage Action for America, the lobbying affiliate of The Heritage Foundation, said in a statement that this deregulation move is welcome.

“Chairman Pai and his colleagues at the FCC have demonstrated leadership by jump-starting the process of rolling back these so-called net neutrality rules,” Needham said. “The political left’s desire to treat internet service providers as publicly regulated utilities will erode choice and competition in the marketplace.”

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., supports the deregulation.

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., opposed the rule change.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, approved of the move by the FCC.

“I commend the FCC for taking the first step in returning the internet to the state of permissionless innovation it thrived under until just two short years ago,” Lee said in a statement, adding:

Today’s action begins the process of undoing the agency’s 2015 Open Internet Order, which upended the decades-old bipartisan consensus that consumers—not government regulators—should control the information superhighway.

Comments for the public comment period will be accepted until August 16, Gattuso said, with the final rule change likely to come in the fall. (For more from the author of “Federal Communication Commission Takes Steps to Undo Obama-Era Net Neutrality” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Underreported: How This Nonprofit Is Solving Homelessness Without Government Funding

/0 Comments/in , /by

Growing up, Teena Faison never imagined she’d find herself a single mom and homeless.

“We didn’t wake up one day and go, ‘Hey, I just want to be homeless with my kids,’” she told The Daily Signal “No. There’s many, many contributing factors to that—lack of education, lack of resources, addiction.”

At 34 years old, Faison decided to change her ways and go to Solutions for Change, a family homeless nonprofit located in Vista, California, 45 minutes outside San Diego. Instead of simply providing residents a place to sleep, Solutions for Change takes a holistic approach to solving homelessness, requiring residents to go through counseling, take courses in financial literacy, parenting, leadership, and anger management, and eventually, get a job.

Over the past 17 years, Solutions for Change has gotten 1,200 families off government assistance and back on their feet. But because its program requires residents to be drug-free, Solutions for Change is ineligible to receive government funding.

Watch the video to learn more about why, despite its high success rates at solving family homelessness, Solutions for Change chose to maintain its drug-free policy instead of accepting government funding. (For more from the author of “Underreported: How This Nonprofit Is Solving Homelessness Without Government Funding” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Major Entitlement Overhaul That Could Be Part of Trump’s Budget

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump’s budget proposal, to be rolled out Tuesday, likely will include Medicaid reform. But with several approaches having been floated, definitive answers will have to wait until the White House releases the fiscal plan.

During his Senate confirmation hearings in January, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said he would look at changes to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor.

Medicaid covers about 70 million low-income Americans. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia expanded eligibility for Medicaid under Obamacare.

When serving as House Budget Committee chairman as a congressman from Georgia, Price advocated giving Medicaid funds to states in block grants as a way of providing more flexibility.

“Block grants would save the federal government money, but would shift that cost to the states,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan research group in Washington, told The Daily Signal. “When a state has more skin in the game, will it be more cost-effective? Yes. But perhaps not enough to deal with the new expense.”

Another solution, Goldwein said, is to cap “provider taxes,” which states impose on health care providers. He said states use the tax to get more money from the federal government without losing revenue. The federal government prevents states from taxing health providers more than 6 percent.

He said most states make deals with hospitals to increase Medicaid payments in exchange for taxing the hospital by the same amount, then go to the federal government presenting a need for a larger subsidy based on the larger payment from the state to the hospitals.

“If you phased [the state provider taxes on hospitals] out to 0 percent, it would save $100 billion” on Medicaid, Goldwein said. “If you cut to 5.5 percent, it would save about $10 billion.”

Fiscal hawks long have argued that the federal government’s main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—are the key drivers of the national debt and deficit spending.

In March, four Republican governors—John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Snyder of Michigan, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas—touted their own proposal to reform Medicaid.

In a letter to Congress, the four governors said any reform should have work requirements, allow options on eligibility and what drugs are covered, and continue to allow the Medicaid expansion that occurred under Obamacare.

A better solution would be for the government to provide premium supports to encourage people to move on to private health insurance plans, said Robert Moffitt, senior fellow for health policy at The Heritage Foundation.

“Able-bodied Medicaid recipients, we’re not talking about someone who is disabled or in a nursing home, could receive a defined premium support to be mainstreamed into private insurance,” Moffit told The Daily Signal.

This would accomplish two things—reducing spending and helping patients, he said:

This Medicaid population would then have access to more doctors, since most doctors take private insurance and fewer are taking Medicaid. This population is also relative younger, which usually has a positive impact on the insurance pool. That could drive down cost for the rest of the American population.

Government data found 11.5 million able-bodied adults were on Medicaid.

In their recently passed American Health Care Act, House Republicans adopted a Heritage Foundation policy proposal that would change Medicaid to a per capita cap on funding for states that would be limited to medical inflation plus 1 percent.

Medicaid recipients’ access to doctors has become more limited, according to a study last year that found 1 in 3 available physicians don’t see Medicaid patients.

The White House Office of Management and Budget did not respond to email inquiries Friday from The Daily Signal about whether, and which, Medicaid reforms would be part of the budget proposal.

“I assume the reform will probably be tied to the House Budget Committee, and would propose to block-grant Medicaid, as the House Republican budget has proposed for years,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal.

Edwards said he also anticipates the Trump administration will go after waste, fraud, and abuse for all entitlements, including Social Security and Medicare. Doing so could save tens of billions of dollars, but still make only a little dent in budget deficits or the debt.

A report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, released Friday, dismissed tackling waste as a long-term solution. The report by the private group says:

Importantly, there is no way to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid even close to sustainable simply by reducing fraud. However, broadly defined program integrity—for example, reducing excessive provider payments and using competition or negotiation to get better prices in Medicare, restricting the ability of states to inflate their federal match in Medicaid, or encouraging and helping workers with disabilities return to work in Social Security—can represent a starting point for entitlement reform. Still, it would be impossible to fix Social Security and Medicare solely through program integrity—even using a broad definition—and, ultimately, tough choices will need to be made to bring the costs of these programs under control.

Of the three main entitlements, Medicaid is the most sustainable, Moffit said.

“You can’t get control of federal debt and deficits unless you address Social Security and Medicare,” Moffit said. “Otherwise, it’s just not going to happen.” (For more from the author of “The Major Entitlement Overhaul That Could Be Part of Trump’s Budget” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Drone Registry Declared Unlawful

/0 Comments/in , /by

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously declared the Federal Aviation Administration’s recreational drone owners’ registry to be “unlawful as applied to model aircraft” on Friday.

As a result, hobby drone fliers across the nation no longer face the specter of $277,500 in civil and criminal fines, as well as jail time, merely for failing to identify themselves to the FAA.

In late 2015, the FAA for the first time made the decision to subject recreational drone fliers to mandatory registration. Beginning on Dec. 21—just days before Christmas—anyone who owned a drone weighing more than 0.55 pounds at takeoff (helpfully, the FAA indicated this was the equivalent of two sticks of butter) would be required to register themselves pursuant to a statute authorizing the registration of aircraft. To comply, hobbyists had to provide regulators with detailed personal information and pay a $5 registration fee.

Flying a drone even a single inch above one’s own backyard before registering was deemed a federal felony.

At the time, the agency noted that surging demand for small quadcopters and other models of unmanned aircraft systems necessitated quick action. Taking advantage of the “good cause” exemption under the Administrative Procedure Act, the FAA bypassed the normal notice and comment process and pushed the registration rule into effect in a mere two months.

There was, however, one significant legal hurdle. As we wrote at the time, the FAA’s rushed regulatory action ran directly afoul of a statute passed by Congress, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Section 336 of that law specifically states that “the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.”

The agency has attempted to bypass this statutory prohibition by consistently claiming that the new rule was not, in fact, a new rule. The FAA always had authority to register model aircraft, this line of reasoning goes, but merely exercised discretion in opting not to.

How Hobbyists Become Felons

One drone owner, John Taylor, disagreed and filed suit. In the unanimous opinion by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Judges Robert Wilkins and Harry Edwards, the court was clear: “Taylor is right.”

In his opinion, Kavanaugh acknowledges the agency’s longstanding authority to register aircraft—a process that “is quite extensive, as one would imagine for airplanes.” Kavanaugh goes on to correctly note, though, that “the FAA has not previously interpreted the general registration statute to apply to model aircraft.”

Indeed, in 1981 the agency published Advisory Circular 91-57, “Model Aircraft Operating Standards,” and made compliance entirely voluntary. A 2007 notice published in the Federal Register espoused a new regulatory scheme for drones, subdividing them into public, commercial, and recreational aircraft, and prohibiting flights “without specific authority … For model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57.”

In other words, as the court pointed out, the 2007 “notice did not alter the longstanding voluntary regulatory approach for model aircraft”—an approach which Congress codified in Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act.

But is the registry requirement a rule promulgated in violation of the “clear statutory restriction on FAA regulation of model aircraft,” as Taylor alleged, or merely a decision to “enforce a pre-existing statutory requirement,” as the FAA contended?

To answer this, the court looked first to the definition of “rule” contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, finding that the registry was indeed a “statement of general or particular applicability … designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.” It then considered the scope of the registration requirement, which includes “model aircraft” and defines the term identically to its definition in the 2012 law. For the court, this could lead to only one conclusion:

In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA ‘may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,’ yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a ‘rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.’ Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft. (Emphasis added)

The court found the FAA’s counter arguments “unpersuasive.” The registry requirement was no mere ending of enforcement discretion, but a “rule that creates a new regulatory regime for model aircraft,” replete with “new requirements” for hobbyists and “new penalties” to which those hobbyists are subjected.

A Victory for the Rule of Law

The judges’ swift dismissal of this line of reasoning is hardly surprising. In one telling exchange at oral argument, the FAA asserted that the rule was merely an enforcement of existing law that the 2012 statute in no way hindered, prompting one judge to retort, “You’re just making stuff up. That’s not what the statute says.”

FAA arguments that the registration rule is needed on policy grounds were similarly rejected. Though “[a]viation safety is obviously an important goal,” the court noted that judges are bound to “follow the statute as written.”

In other words, if federal law is to be rewritten, it is neither a judge nor a regulator who is constitutionally empowered to do so. That responsibility falls squarely—and exclusively—on the shoulders of Congress.

The FAA’s recreational drone registry may have been struck down, but its commercial drone regulations were not at issue, and remain in force. The FAA’s ability to preserve the integrity and safety of the national airspace is similarly unaffected. Section 336(b) of the 2012 law affirms the “authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”

Friday’s opinion out of the D.C. Circuit is thus a victory not only for Taylor, but for the rule of law itself. Hundreds of thousands of hobby fliers who, only this morning, were subject to arbitrary and extreme federal criminal penalties have been granted a reprieve—at least for now. It remains to be seen whether the FAA will appeal.

Hopefully, though, the agency will treat the decision as a learning opportunity rather than a speed bump, and re-hew its drone policy to the letter and spirit of the law. (For more from the author of “Federal Drone Registry Declared Unlawful” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

School Plans to Require Skirts for Boys Due to Skyrocketing Numbers of Transgender Students

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A north London private school has drawn up plans to introduce gender-neutral uniforms in response to a growing number of pupils questioning their gender identity.

Highgate school currently has an option for girls to wear a grey pleated skirt, but the school is consulting on a mix-and-match uniform policy which will not specify a different requirement for boys and girls.

Girls can currently wear grey trousers or skirts as well as the dark blue jackets and ties which make up the rest of the uniform. Boys may not wear a skirt and also have to wait until they are 16 to wear earrings.

Adam Pettitt, headmaster at the school, told the Sunday Times: “This generation is really questioning [if we are] being binary in the way we look at things.”

He said some former pupils had complained about the changes. “They write in and say if you left children to their own devices they would grow up differently and you are promoting the wrong ideas,” he said. (Read more from “School Plans to Require Skirts for Boys Due to Skyrocketing Numbers of Transgender Students” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jim Mattis Faces a Difficult Decision on the Military’s Transgender Policy

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Pentagon is prepared to implement a new policy clearing the way for transgender men and women to join the armed forces, Military Times has learned, but final approval rests with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who could endorse, revise, delay or even abandon it.

Mattis faces a July 1 deadline, according to the parameters defined by his predecessor as defense secretary, Ash Carter. But the sensitive matter has become much more urgent for two transgender students now within days of graduating from the Army and Air Force military academies.

As USA Today first reported May 10, the unidentified cadets were recently informed that, absent a policy formalizing new accession standards, they won’t be commissioned as military officers with the rest of their graduating class. Those proposed guidelines were sent to the defense secretary’s office but Mattis has yet to act on them, according to multiple sources familiar with discussions surrounding the policy’s implementation.

Meanwhile, neither the Army nor the Air Force has granted waivers to the cadets so they may proceed to serve in the active-duty military, causing some to question whether Mattis might decide against the proposed policy. Already, the Trump administration has moved to scale back federal protections for transgender students attending public schools, sending a strong signal it opposes further expanding such rights.

The Air Force Academy holds its graduation May 24 in Colorado Springs. West Point’s ceremony, at which Mattis is slated to provide the commencement address, will be held May 27 in New York. (Read more from “Jim Mattis Faces a Difficult Decision on the Military’s Transgender Policy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Admin: No State Has Sovereignty Over the City of Jerusalem

/0 Comments/in , /by

After days of noncommittal statements about the status of Israel’s capital city, the Trump administration has finally come clean about its position on Jerusalem. An administration official told Conservative Review Wednesday that the Trump-led government rejects Israel’s claims to sovereignty over the entirety of its historic capital of Jerusalem.

Conservative Review reached out to the State Department after U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, a high-ranking administration official, called for the administration to move its embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“I believe that the capital should be Jerusalem and the embassy should be moved to Jerusalem because if you look at all their government is in Jerusalem,” Haley told CBN Tuesday.

Although her comments were received as encouraging by the pro-Israel community, Haley appeared to contradict statements made Tuesday by national security adviser H.R. McMaster and press secretary Sean Spicer. Both officials refused to answer whether the Western Wall (a Jewish holy site that is in Jerusalem and claimed by Israel) is part of Israel. Spicer, for his part, stated that the Western Wall “is in Jerusalem.”

A U.S. official clarified to Conservative Review that the official Trump administration position on Jerusalem is the same as the Obama administration’s. Israel’s claims over Jerusalem are not recognized and should be solved through negotiations with the Palestinians, the official explained.

“The Western Wall is located in Jerusalem. While we certainly recognize the strong connection between the Jewish people and the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism, our position on Jerusalem is unchanged,” the administration official tells Conservative Review.

“Since 1948, every administration has taken the official position that no state has sovereignty over the city of Jerusalem. The status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians,” the official added.

By proclaiming that “no state has sovereignty” over Jerusalem, the Trump administration finds itself in a position that is wholly rejected by a bipartisan consensus of congressional leaders.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act, which was originally passed in 1995 by an almost unanimous consensus in Congress, calls for the United States to move its embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Past presidents have put off moving the embassy or even recognizing Israel’s capital, for fear that doing so would incite Muslim nations throughout the region.

Conservative leaders such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and House Freedom Caucus chair Mark Meadows, R-N.C., both released statements yesterday supporting Israel’s claims to Jerusalem. Even Democrat Senator Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called the refusal to include the Western Wall as part of Israel “shocking and offensive.”

On the campaign trail, President Trump pledged to move the “American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.” Since becoming president, his advisers have dramatically walked back that position. Some reports indicate that the president is now using the Jerusalem sovereignty issue as a bargaining chip with an eye toward Israel’s negotiations with the Palestinians.

President Trump will arrive in Israel on May 22 and will visit the Western Wall. (For more from the author of “Trump Admin: No State Has Sovereignty Over the City of Jerusalem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes Dead at 77

/0 Comments/in , /by

Roger Ailes died Thursday morning. His wife Elizabeth Ailes is “sad and heartbroken” according to a statement posted on Drudge Report.

The Former Fox News and Fox Television Stations Group CEO leaves behind one adult son, Zachary Ailes. Mrs. Ailes called her husband a “patriot” whose work “affected the lives of many millions.”

In addition to his position at Fox, Ailes spent many years consulting for politicians, including presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and most recently Donald Trump.

Ailes’ leadership at Fox News came under fire last year as over 20 female colleagues claimed that he sexually harassed them. His alleged victims include former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson and former Kelly Files host Megyn Kelly. Ailes denied the allegations, but retired from Fox in July of 2016.

Reactions to the news of Ailes’ death were diverse on Twitter.

Fox News Hannity host Sean Hannity tweeted that Ailes “dramatically and forever changed the political and the media landscape.”

Political commentator Matt Drudge tweeted that he “brought news to life.”

National Review journalist Jim Geraghty tweeted “whatever Roger Ailes’ flaws and misdeeds, his loved ones are in pain now.”

Others on Twitter recalled his alleged actions against women. Washington Post reporter Drew Harwell tweeted simply, “take a moment today to remember the many women who said they were victimized by Roger Ailes.”

Read Mrs. Ailes’ full statement on her husband’s death below:

I am profoundly sad and heartbroken to report that my husband, Roger Ailes, passed away this morning. Roger was a loving husband to me, to his son Zachary, and a loyal friend to many. He was also a patriot, profoundly grateful to live in a country that gave him so much opportunity to work hard, to rise — and to give back. During a career that stretched over more than five decades, his work in entertainment, in politics, and in news affected the lives of many millions. And so even as we mourn his death, we celebrate his life …

(For more from the author of “Former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes Dead at 77” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Is the Man Now Running Point on the Russia Investigation

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Wednesday that former FBI Director Robert Mueller would oversee the ongoing investigation into possible collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials during last year’s general election.

Mueller is a widely respected figure in Washington D.C. who has served in the administrations of Republican and Democratic presidents. He joined the Justice Department during the first Bush administration as an assistant to Attorney General Richard Thornburgh. In the following years, he became chief of the department’s criminal division, where he oversaw the prosecutions of deposed Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega and mafia don John Gotti. President Bill Clinton appointed Mueller U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California in 1998.

He remained with DOJ until President George W. Bush appointed him director of the FBI, just one week before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He would remain at the helm of the agency until 2013 — President Obama asked Mueller to stay on for a short time past the conclusion of his 10 year term.

After leaving government service, Mueller became a partner at WilmerHale. He will resign from the firm to avoid conflicts of interest, and his biographical page on the firm’s website was scrubbed within minutes of the announcement.

The former director forged a reputation as a turnaround man during his time atop the bureau. Congressional leaders savaged the FBI, among other agencies, for failing to stop the devastating attacks that left nearly 3,000 Americans dead on Sept. 11, 2011. Subsequent inquiries showed several FBI field offices each recovered intelligence relevant to the attack in advance of 9/11, but they failed to work cohesively and generate an actionable response. (Read more from “This Is the Man Now Running Point on the Russia Investigation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.