Jim Acosta Is the Reason We Have Stupid Warning Labels

/0 Comments/in , /by

Following the legal saga of #AcostaGate, the White House has now put out some ground rules for journalists.

It’s pretty simple: Journalists get one question when called upon, follow-ups are at the discretion of the president or White House official giving the press conference, and when it’s no longer your turn, you hand the microphone over. It’s so simple a kindergartner could grasp it. This short set of protocols seem to be basic rules of conduct for a reasonable human being.

However, most reasonable people wouldn’t conduct themselves like a self-important showboat, as Acosta did at the November 7 White House press conference. No, we’re dealing with a different standard here. It’s the same kind of standard that requires warning labels on products that seem silly, but probably exist because someone did something stupid and then sued when things went badly.

Most people in this world don’t need to be told that packages of peanuts might set off peanut allergies or that they shouldn’t use cleaning chemicals as body wash. For everyone else, there’s a warning label to inform them of how to handle themselves like a functional human being without adverse effects from their behavior.

Yes, it seems there’s always “that guy” who does something that requires either a special safety label, a new rule, or a company-wide safety briefing in its aftermath. For the White House press corps, Jim Acosta is that guy. (For more from the author of “Jim Acosta Is the Reason We Have Stupid Warning Labels” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Dan Crenshaw Triggers Democrat Panel With Simple Question About Trump ‘Undermining Democracy’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican Rep.-elect Dan Crenshaw (TX) ― the newly elected congressman mocked on SNL for the eye-patch he wears due to losing his eye in an IED blast while serving in Afghanistan ― isn’t known as some die-hard defender of Donald Trump, but that doesn’t mean he won’t call out the left when they’re being hyperbolic in their criticism of the president. In a panel discussion on “Face the Nation” this weekend, Crenshaw’s straightforward question in defense of Trump triggered a notable exchange among him and the Democrats on the panel.

In response to more vague allegations of Trump destroying democracy, Crenshaw asked a question he’s posed to Trump critics in the past: “What exactly are we talking about?”

“I think some of our democratic freedoms and the principles we live by have been under attack for the better part of two years,” said Democratic Rep.-elect Joe Neguse (CA).

Anchor Margaret Brennan turned to Crenshaw to ask if he wanted to respond to Neguse’s assertion, saying with suggestive emphasis, “since the president is the leader of your party.”

Crenshaw gladly accepted the invitation. “I always ask the question: Like what?” he said. “Like what is he undermining exactly? What democratic freedoms have been undermined? We just had an election where we switched power in the House. Democracy is at work. People are voting in record numbers. I always ask for examples. And then we can hit those examples one by one, and if it’s worth criticizing, it’s worth criticizing. But this broad brush criticism that the president is somehow undermining our democracy, I always wonder like, what exactly are we talking about?”

(Read more from “Watch: Dan Crenshaw Triggers Democrat Panel With Simple Question About Trump ‘Undermining Democracy'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Trump and House Democrats Can Work Together on Foreign Affairs

/0 Comments/in , /by

Following the 2018 midterms, political observers have begun forecasting dramatic battles between the Democratic House and the Trump administration over the next two years.

They predict that between the congressional investigations of the White House, wrangling with Republicans in the Senate, and political showmanship all around, little governing will actually take place. They may well be right, but for those on either side of the aisle interested in passing meaningful policy into law, there are definitely two areas where President Trump and congressional Democrats could work together: national security and foreign policy. . .

A place to start would be addressing the U.S. military’s ongoing involvement in Yemen. Despite bipartisan pushes for extracting our support from the Saudi-perpetuated humanitarian crisis, Trump has been reluctant to pull assistance from an ally. But there are signs that this obstacle might be eroding in the face of the admission that Saudi officials were complicit in the murder of a U.S. resident in Turkey.

American intervention in a small, strategically unimportant country’s civil war is precisely the kind of costly foreign entanglement Trump campaigned against. Steps can be taken by Congress and the administration to limit support to countries involved in the conflict and remove the boot from the throat of the Yemeni people.

There is also room for positive work on the broader war on terrorism, where the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) — written in the impassioned aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — has long needed revisiting. Leaders in both parties have shown interest in reforming or ending the open-ended authorization for a global war on terror and the Trump administration could demonstrate good governance by collaborating in this process. (Read more from “How Trump and House Democrats Can Work Together on Foreign Affairs” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Left’s Accusation That the Right Is Fascist Is Simply Psychological Projection

/0 Comments/in , /by

. . .Another more mainstream factor is the belief that we really are just a hop, skip, and executive order away from fascism. Declaring that America is on the verge of authoritarianism is normal, even expected, in prestigious publications. It has been conventional since President Trump was elected.

For all his faults, however, Trump has done little to expand or consolidate presidential power. If Trump appears as a plausible strongman, then the government in general and the presidency in particular have too much power. Much of the progressive anxiety about authoritarianism results from projecting their own philosophy of government onto their political opponents. What they would do to others, they assume others would do to them.

Consider the left’s increasingly hostile treatment of religious liberty. They have passed laws that attempt to allow them to imprison Christians and other dissenters who refuse to promote and celebrate same-sex wedding ceremonies. They have litigated for years to force elderly nuns to fund and facilitate the distribution of birth control. The Obama administration even went to the Supreme Court to argue that the federal government can regulate the hiring and firing of religious ministers.

These are not hot-headed tweets or intemperate remarks. These illiberal positions were carefully considered before being included in laws and legal briefs or promoted in the press. This program is the calculated position of the mainstream left, and it has nothing to do with Trump’s excesses (real and imagined).

Why do they care so much about strong-arming a few nonconformist wedding vendors or dissenting nuns? As policy, it is not worth it. Surely there are more effective ways to distribute birth control than endlessly suing the Little Sisters of the Poor. (Read more from “The Left’s Accusation That the Right Is Fascist Is Simply Psychological Projection” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Americans Disagree About What Racism Is, and It’s a Big Problem

/0 Comments/in , /by

According to a recent NBC News poll, 62 percent of Americans polled said racism is a “major problem.” Last year, Gallup found that 42 percent are “very worried about race relations.” In 2001, when Gallup began that survey, the percentage was only 28 percent, and in 2010 it was a mere 13 percent.

There are many plausible explanations for this jump, including a spate of media-highlighted, race-related police shootings and the controversial presidency of Donald Trump. What is less clear is how our society can reverse this trend. One tremendous obstacle to improving race relations is that Americans cannot even agree on what racism is.

There are two basic definitions of racism in the United States, one roughly associated with progressives and one roughly associated with conservatives. The former describes racism as the failure to acknowledge and seek to redress systemic discrimination against select disadvantaged minority groups. It is very broad and captures everything from unconscious bias to white supremacy. The latter views racism as making assumptions about, or taking action towards, an individual or group on the sole basis of their race. It is narrow and generally requires belief, intent, and animosity.

These definitions don’t simply differ; to a great extent they actually contradict each other. Much of the contradiction stems from the fact that the progressive definition of racism requires that an advantaged individual or group must be attacking the less privileged. The more conservative and narrow definition of racism requires no appeal to power structures, only to bias, and can be committed by anyone towards anyone.

A very current example of this disagreement over the term can be seen in the media’s treatment of white women after the 2016 and 2018 elections. Many progressives have argued that white women voted in a racist manner in order to uphold their privileged place in the white male patriarchy. Many conservatives balk at this and claim a double standard exists, since a white person making similar attacks on a minority group would be almost certainly be called racist. (Read more from “Americans Disagree About What Racism Is, and It’s a Big Problem” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obvious Double Standard on Recusals Proves Russia Probe Is About Getting Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Federalist. The installation of Matthew Whitaker as the acting attorney general has the recusal pundits barking like shelter dogs in the presence of a trespassing squirrel. In case you’re wondering how the recusal rules work, it’s simply a matter of whether it helps or hurts Trump.

Don’t believe me? See if you can detect a pattern. Since Whitaker might reign in the special counsel, he must be recused, they argue. Similarly, when it appeared former attorney general Jeff Sessions might help Trump, he acceded to demands he recuse himself. But Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is a proven thorn in the president’s side with an obvious conflict of interest, so no demands for recusal there.

Judge Rudy Contreras’s friendship with disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page at the same time he was reviewing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant applications from Strzok did not require recusal from considering the application. But the Trump appointee with authority to consider a search warrant of Trump’s lawyer’s private office was recused, leading to the raid to look for evidence that likely could have been obtained by subpoena.

The recusal pundits called for the recusal of newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh because he might side with the president in future cases. Yet when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls Trump a “faker” and openly expresses dismay at the prospect of his presidency, she need not recuse. Don’t bother reading the underlying rules on conflict of interest, because there’s only one test that matters: Would the recusal help get Trump? . . .

Forcing Whitaker to recuse himself from the Robert Mueller probe would “protect” it by restoring oversight responsibility to Rosenstein. This seems to be a bipartisan goal. Republicans have joined the Democrats and the media to knowingly caution against the imprudence of stopping the Mueller “investigation.” But before we start contemplating tortured recusal arguments, it’s worth asking, “What is Mueller is supposed doing, anyway?” (Read more from “Obvious Double Standard on Recusals Proves Russia Probe Is About Getting Trump” HERE)

___________________________________________

Trump Says Mueller Team Has ‘Gone Absolutely Nuts’

By USA Today. Criticized for picking an acting attorney general who has a history of speaking out against Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, President Donald Trump launched another attack Thursday against the special counsel.

Claiming that “the inner workings of the Mueller investigation are a total mess,” Trump tweeted that investigators “have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want.”

Trump did not detail his complaints, though he described Mueller’s team as “a disgrace to our Nation.”

Lawmakers criticized Trump for appointing aide Matt Whitaker as acting attorney general to replace dismissed Jeff Sessions, a move they said was designed to impede the Russia investigation.

Sessions had recused himself from the Mueller investigation. Whitaker is in a position to supervise an inquiry he has repeatedly criticized in interviews over the past year-and-a-half. Whitaker suggested that defunding could stop the Mueller investigation. (Read more from “Trump Says Mueller Team Has ‘Gone Absolutely Nuts'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Trump Reveals What He’s Going to Do Next Time Acosta Misbehaves

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Donald Trump revealed in an exclusive interview with “FOX News Sunday,” which is set to air on Sunday, that the next time CNN’s Jim Acosta misbehaves during a news conference that he will be thrown out or the news conference will immediately end.

“A federal judge who you appointed has just ruled that you must give CNN reporter Jim Acosta his press pass back,” Fox News Chris Wallace said. “Your reaction to the ruling, sir.” . . .

“We’re doing that, were going to write them up right now,” Trump continued. “It’s not a big deal and if he misbehaves we’ll throw him out or we’ll stop the news conference.” . . .

“We’re writing them now. We’ll have rules of decorum you know you can’t keep asking questions,” Trump replied. “We had a lot of reporters in that room, many many reporters in that room and they were unable to ask questions because this guy gets up and starts you know doing what he’s supposed to be doing for him and for CNN and you know just shouting out questions and making statements too.”

(Read more from “Watch: Trump Reveals What He’s Going to Do Next Time Acosta Misbehaves” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Reporter Claims She’s Never Met Someone With an AR-15 Who Wasn’t a Killer, Gets Roasted

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Daily Wire. Over the weekend, Newsweek writer Nina Burleigh discovered that law-abiding, gun-owning Americans take offense when you claim they’re all “mass murderers.”

Responding to Rep. Eric Swalwell’s (D-CA) suggestion that gun owners who resist government authorities who might confiscate their weapons could be literally nuked from orbit, Burleigh decided to wax poetic on why, exactly, she felt the nation’s 15,000,000 or so legally owned AR-15 rifles should be immediately taken from their owners.

No AR-15 owner she’s met, Burleigh said, has been anything short of a mass murderer.

. . .

The math didn’t occur to Burleigh, however, or the fact that a vast majority of AR-15 owners are hunters, target shooters, and former members of the military who wanted to take home a small piece of military technology. The vast majority of AR-15 owners are also, of course, not homicidal maniacs.

(Read more from “Reporter Claims She’s Never Met Someone With an Ar-15 Who Wasn’t a Killer, Gets Roasted” HERE)

_________________________________________________

Newsweek Writer: Only AR-15 Owners I Know Are Mass Murderers

By The Daily Caller. Newsweek writer Nina Burleigh claimed Saturday that almost every person she has heard of who owns an AR-15 rifle “has been a mass murderer.”

And “based on Twitter sample the rest of them are scarily paranoid,” Burleigh tweeted.

“Get on the right side of history,” she urged, tagging NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch and right-wing personality Joe Biggs, who are both outspoken supporters of the Second Amendment.

AR-15 rifles were used in the Newtown school shooting, the Orlando nightclub shooting, the Aurora, Colorado shooting at a movie theater, and other mass shootings. An estimated 8 million to 15 million people own AR-15s, making it the most popular rifle in America. (Read more from “Newsweek Writer: Only AR-15 Owners I Know Are Mass Murderers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Who or What Is Really Responsible for the Huge Forest Fires in California?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Federalist. . .Let us start with this simple aspect. Forest fires are a normal thing. Often caused by lightning or other natural causes, they are God’s way of clearing forests. In those natural forest clearances, the wildlife that exists in them are threatened or their habitat is destroyed. What has changed is mankind’s intervention in the natural process. The question is, what other factors may be causing the change in the intensity of recent forest fires?

We also came armed with a thought. If you believe that global warming is making life more challenging for forest management, then you should support proper forest clearance. Otherwise we will be left with even more intense fires. . .

Speaking with Chris French, the Acting Deputy Chief of Forest Service (FS), we received a primer on what is really going on with forest fires today.

When asked what he believes is the primary cause of the intense forest fires, Mr. French’s immediate response was “Forests are overstocked. There are more trees than 100 years ago.” He went on to say that part of the problem was the Forest Service’s good work in the recent past stopping forest fires. This meant, however, that their focus was largely directed away from forest maintenance, which caused the elements that fuel a fire like underbrush, dead trees or more density to occur. . .

Over the recent years as forest fires became more intense, they spent more money on suppression and less on clearance causing a vicious cycle of less money on clearance. At this point French stated that it was projected that 60% of their budget went toward suppression leaving fewer precious dollars for clearance. Recent Congressional budget bills have increased the Forest Service budget providing additional funding for clearance, thus hopefully stopping as many fires from happening and less money spent on suppression. (Read more from “Who or What Is Really Responsible for the Huge Forest Fires in California?” HERE)

________________________________________________

Volunteers Flock to Northern California Fire Zone to Lend a Helping Hand

By NBC News. It took Frank Hilscher only a half-hour to figure out what to do as the scale of the Camp Fire, the deadliest wildfire in California history, began to dawn on him.

Hilscher first heard about the fire on Nov. 8, the day it ignited near Poe Dam, on the North Fork Feather River in Butte County. (Authorities said Sunday night that the fire has killed 77 people and left 993 yet to be accounted for, a drop from almost 1,300 on Saturday.)

“I woke up the next morning, and they talked about how devastating it was,” Hilscher said in an interview Sunday. “I sat around for about 30 minutes and thought about what we could do to help.”

Hilscher, 37, owns the Sexy Panda Food Truck, which sells Asian-themed street food in Sacramento, the state capital. So he called up Alex Hader, who manages the truck, and headed to a restaurant store, where he emptied out his business account.

Soon, “we filled up the truck and went on our way,” bound for Chico, about 90 miles north. They’ve been going 24-7 ever since, handing out supplies and serving thousands of meals a day to victims of the fire from the parking lot of a Walmart, Hilscher said. (Read more from “Volunteers Flock to Northern California Fire Zone to Lend a Helping Hand” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What You Need to Know About the Lawsuit Against Trump’s New Asylum Policies

/0 Comments/in , /by

This morning a federal judge will hear a challenge to the Trump administration’s recently announced changes to the rules governing asylum.

The changes came mere days after the midterm election and in response to the Central American caravan’s continued approach to the U.S. border. On November 9, 2018, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen jointly issued new regulations governing asylum claims. Those regulations provide that individuals who enter the United States in contravention of the presidential proclamation suspending entry of aliens through the southern border with Mexico, other than at a port of entry, are ineligible for asylum. The following day, President Trump issued the referenced proclamation.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) responded immediately, filing suit in a San Francisco-based federal court on behalf of four nonprofit organizations that assist asylum applicants: East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the Trump administration’s newly issued asylum regulations violate the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that regulations be published 30 days prior to their effective date. The nonprofit organizations also argue that the regulations violate the Immigration and Nationality Act by barring those who illegally cross the southern border from qualifying for asylum. . .

The Department of Justice argued in its brief that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the regulations at issue. The Trump administration is correct. To sue, a plaintiff must suffer a cognizable injury and, in this case, the changes to the rules governing asylum do not harm the nonprofit organizations. . .

The ACLU’s third-party standing argument fares no better, though, for three reasons. First, the plaintiffs did not make this argument in their initial court filing and such belated arguments are waived. Second, even if the plaintiffs had not waived the argument, in order to assert third-party standing Al Otro Lado and the other nonprofit plaintiffs must still suffer an actual injury. It is not enough that the regulations harm third parties not before the court. (Read more from “What You Need to Know About the Lawsuit Against Trump’s New Asylum Policies” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.