Ouch: ESPN’s Decision to Give ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner the Courage Award Just Backfired Big Time

Woman Involved in Bruce Jenner’s Car Crash Decries ESPY Award

By Des Bieler. Caitlyn Jenner made news Wednesday night when she took the stage at the ESPYs to receive the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. Some found her words powerful and moving while some questioned why she was there in the first place.

Count Jessica Steindorff among those who thought that the award should have gone to someone else. She was among those involved, as was Jenner, in a February traffic accident in Malibu, Calif., that claimed a woman’s life.

Steindorff is suing Jenner over the incident, as are the stepchildren of the woman, Kim Howe, who died. Steindorff had this to say to Entertainment Tonight about the former Olympic gold medalist and “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” star receiving the award:

“I find it difficult to understand how the culture we live in can honor a person who is responsible for taking a life and injuring several others with both an award and a reality show,” Steindorff told ET. “For an individual who is such a positive role model in many aspects of her life, Caitlyn has failed to do the right thing and take responsibility for her actions.”

“I would hope that someone who seems to greatly value the importance of human existence would be more sensitive to the fact that she ended another person’s life. Sadly we are living in a tabloid society,” she added.

(Read more from “Woman Involved in Bruce Jenner’s Car Crash Decries ESPY Award” HERE)

________________________________________________

The ESPY Bruce Jenner Courage Award Spectacle

By Norvell Rose. It was indeed a spectacle. But the fallout from Wednesday night’s ESPY Award presented to Caitlyn Jenner — the transgendered woman formerly known as Bruce — is certainly not what a cable net that relies on its fans for success wants to see. The homepage homage to Caitlyn’s “courage” has been blasted with sharply negative comments on the ESPN website.

Western Journalism published a pre-show piece on the Arthur Ashe Courage Award given to Jenner — that post was entitled “Receiving The ‘Courage’ Award From ESPN Could Be The Worst Thing To Happen To Caitlyn Jenner.” Ironically, putting the used-to-be-a-man cultural celebrity in the center-stage spotlight during the nationally televised ABC show last night may have been pretty bad for ESPN as well…if posted reaction is any indicator.

Among the many news outlets gushing with morning-after praise about the high-profile award and Jenner’s long acceptance speech is The Washington Post. The paper noted that Jenner’s moment (actually many moments) in the spotlight was among the “Best of the 2015 ESPYs.”

Then, there are comments such as the following about Jenner’s tearful celebration of self and emotional plea for acceptance of other transgendered people:

“…to give an award like the Arthur Ashe award for Courage to a guy that just feels he’s a woman or whatever the case may be is an absolute travesty and a total misuse and black mark for that award.” (Read more from “Ouch: ESPN’s Decision to Give ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner the Courage Award Just Backfired Big Time” HERE)
________________________________________________

Peter Berg, Friday Night Lights TV Series Producer, Shares “Hateful” Meme about Bruce Jenner

According to the Examiner, producer Peter Berg shared on his Instagram account a “hateful meme” about “Caitlyn” Jenner by comparing him to a true American hero, double-amputee Colonel Gregory Gadson. (Col. Gadson is a West Point classmate of Restoring Liberty Publisher Joe Miller) Here’s the image shared by Berg:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Actress: Owning a Firearm “Was Life-Changing for Me” [+video]

Kelly Carlson is a proud, gun-touting gal, and she’s not afraid to speak about it.

“Owning a firearm … was life-changing for me because women for sure, but even men too can be in a very, very vulnerable position with no options if you have intruders or any scenario where you’re being dominated physically,” Carlson told FOX411 about buying a gun after experiencing traumatizing security breaches. “[A firearm] is the only equalizer you have. … It’s crucial for people to look at it from a logical standpoint and take the emotions out of it because one needs to have that option to save them.”

The Nip/Tuck actress recalled how a person in her past had stalked her in 2012, going as far as hiring people to break into her home repeatedly and tap her phones. She disclosed also that a family member of hers was murdered with a firearm, “and not for a second did anyone think in my family to champion stricter gun laws.” (Read more from “Actress: Owning a Firearm “Was Life-Changing for Me” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

You May Not Want to Use Hand Sanitizer If You Are a Man, Here’s Why

Hand sanitizer causes the skin to absorb 100 times more of the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA), according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Missouri and published in the journal PLOS ONE.

BPA exposure [also] came from handling receipts printed on thermal paper, the kind typically issued by cash registers.

“Our research found that large amounts of BPA can be transferred to your hands and then to the food you hold and eat as well as be absorbed through your skin,” lead author Frederick vom Saal said.

Research had previously shown that hand sanitizers cause the skin to absorb higher levels of chemicals, but this had not previously been demonstrated with BPA . . .

“BPA exhibits hormone-like properties and has been proven to cause reproductive defects in fetuses, infants, children and adults as well as cancer, metabolic and immune problems in rodents,” vom Saal said. “BPA from thermal papers will be absorbed into your blood rapidly; at those levels, many diseases such as diabetes and disorders such as obesity increase as well.” (Read more from “You May Not Want to Use Hand Sanitizer If You Are a Man, Here’s Why” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Obama Just Responded to Attacks on Iran Nuke Deal in a Way That Could Worry Critics Even More

In an interview published Wednesday, President Obama said it was “doubtful” many current Republicans would support the Iran nuclear deal. The president also argued the “yardstick” for success cannot be whether or not Iran can obtain a nuclear weapon.

Speaking to Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times after the terms of the deal were announced, Obama, when asked if any of the “400 Republican candidates” running for president would support the deal, said, “I think it’s doubtful that we get a lot of current Republican elected officials supporting this deal.”

“I think there’s a certain party line that has to be towed, within their primaries and among many sitting members of Congress,” he continued. “But that’s not across the board. It’ll be interesting to see what somebody like a Rand Paul has to say about this. But I think that if I were succeeded by a Republican president — and I’ll be doing everything that I can to prevent that from happening — but if I were, that Republican president would be in a much stronger position than I was when I came into office, in terms of constraining Iran’s nuclear program.”

Obama also did not mince words after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal “an historic mistake for the world.” The two world leaders spoke on the phone Tuesday after the deal was announced.

“[I] think it’s fair to say that under my administration, we’ve done more to facilitate Israeli capabilities,” Obama said. “And I’ve also said that I’m prepared to go further than any other administration’s gone before in terms of providing them additional security assurances from the United States.” He continued:

The thing I want to emphasize is that people’s concerns here are legitimate. Hezbollah has tens of thousands of missiles that are pointed toward Israel. They are becoming more sophisticated. The interdiction of those weapon flows has not been as successful as it needs to be. There are legitimate concerns on the part of the gulf countries about Iran trying to stir up and prompt destabilizing events inside their countries…

(Read more from “Obama Just Responded to Attacks on Iran Nuke Deal in a Way That Could Worry Critics Even More” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Next Big Amnesty

With much of Obama’s amnesty for illegal aliens on hold as a result of the court’s injunction, the legislator-in-chief is looking for every remaining opportunity to fundamentally transform America from the Oval Office in his lingering days. His next conquest is the dismantling of law and order and criminal justice laws that have helped lead to a miraculous decline in violent crime over the past two decades.

On Monday, Obama announced his plan to commute the sentences of 46 drug offenders serving time in federal prison, bringing the total number of commutations to 86 since he has taken office. He even had time to write them a personal letter as he ignored the family of Kate Steinle and other victims of violent crime, such as Kevin Southerland who was gruesomely stabbed to death on the subway right in the nation’s capital. While libertarians and some conservatives are supportive of targeted changes to drug laws, everyone should be gravely concerned about where this is coming from and where it’s headed.

More than Petty Drug Crimes

During his announcement, Obama noted that these individuals were not “hardened criminals” and were in prison only for “non-violent drug offenses.” This is part of the broader red herring argument propagated by the bipartisan “criminal justice reform cartel” – that there is an epidemic of 19-year-olds locked up in federal prison caught smoking marijuana once in their lifetime. But the reality is that most people serving in federal prison have done some serious drug dealing or are connected to violent drug cartels or gangs.

A quick glance at the sentencing history of these 46 individuals reveals that a number of them were dealing or trafficking large amounts of cocaine or methamphetamine. Moreover, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is demanding to know how many of these individuals were connected to gangs, the quantity of narcotics they possessed, and whether the prosecutors and victims were notified. Keep in mind that many of these individuals could have initially been charged with greater offenses but entered into a plea bargain.

Given Obama’s disregard for enforcing laws he dislikes and his aggressive desire to transform the country and dismantle law enforcement, this development should put goose bumps on anyone concerned with the rule of law, aka, most Americans outside of public policy circles. If Obama is this alacritous to sign a get-out-of-jail free card with 18 months left to his presidency, it’s clear that this is the tip of the iceberg.

There is nothing stopping Obama from moving onto other categories of offenses and letting people out of federal prison carte blanche. If he is willing to release tens of thousands of violent criminal aliens who don’t even belong in this country, why would he have any compunction about releasing domestic criminals en masse?

In fact, the threat of a mass criminal amnesty from Obama is more of a clear-and-present danger than almost any potential agenda item remaining on Obama’s list to transform America.

A Familiar Pattern, Albeit with More Legitimacy

Much like his immigration amnesty, Obama has embarked on a campaign to delegitimize the laws he disdains by slowly but steadily refusing to enforce them. Then he releases past offenders. Finally, he threatens a mass amnesty if Congress declines to pass legislation along the lines of his priorities.

But unlike with immigration policy, Obama legitimately has plenary power to pardon criminals, pursuant to Article II Section II of the Constitution. It is one of the few absolute powers of the president. If Obama is willing to overturn immigration laws, over which Congress wields absolute power, he will have no problem fully exercising this rare constitutionally legitimate power. Although his policy of pardoning entire classes of offenses, de facto overturning congressional laws, is clearly a violation of the spirit of the pardon power – which was intended to be used with discretion for individuals or for extraordinary times like during the Civil War and Vietnam draft dodging – no court will limit Obama’s pardons no matter how far he takes them.

Also, as it relates to criminal justice, there are even more establishment Republicans – as well as an entire movement of libertarians and conservatives – committed to pursuing a “reform” agenda. As we noted before, there are some legitimate issues that need to be addressed, but the way some of these Republicans are pursuing the issue will only facilitate Obama’s dangerous dismantling of law enforcement and will only embolden him to expand his policy of clemency.

Obama has already name-dropped some prominent conservatives like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) when promoting his liberalization agenda at left-wing venues. But to borrow a phrase from Obama for a moment, “let’s be clear,” Obama is not concerned about the budgetary costs of prisons; he is fully committed to pushing the long-held agenda of the ACLU to undo the two-decades’ worth of gains against violent and high-level crime. Conservatives are forewarned.

Time for Conservative Supporters of Criminal Justice Reform to Exercise Caution

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older since 1993. Before Republicans rush to judgement about undoing federal sentencing laws, they might want to consider the recent reversal of this trend during the Obama era. Coupled with Obama’s clemency agenda, federalization of law enforcement, and the coming time bomb of left-wing federal judges, now might not be the best time to loosen some of these laws.


As we noted earlier this week, most federal drug offenses are of a larger magnitude than some of the state offenses that have recently been liberalized across the country. Also, a huge percentage of federal drug offenses are perpetrated by illegal immigrants.

Now is not the best time to buttress and legitimize Obama’s criminal justice agenda. It’s a time to enforce immigration laws and demand a fence at the border. Simply building a double-layered security barrier at the Tucson sector of our southern border would prevent roughly a million pounds of Marijuana from entering our country every year. Fewer illegal immigrants and less drugs entering through our southern border is not a full panacea, but it would go a long way in reducing the prison population and the focus on drug crimes – without outsourcing our safety and security to ACLU post-constitutional judges.

When defending the decision to vest the power to pardon in the hands of the president, Alexander Hamilton observes in Federalist #74 that such consequential power in the hands of one man “would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection.” Sadly, in our post-constitutional society with an obsequious media and an impotent Republican opposition, Obama feels no such dread and will not exercise any caution or circumspection. He will exercise a fundamental transformation of this nation’s ideal of law and order.

The least Republicans can do is withdraw from any negotiations over criminal justice “reform” with this president until he guarantees a curtailment of his clemency agenda. The best they can do is exercise their Article I power of the purse to thwart some of these releases from federal prison. Unfortunately, congressional Republicans are not willing to exercise their Article I powers even to a small degree compared to Obama’s willingness to utilize every inch of his Article II powers – and then some. (“Obama’s Next Big Amnesty”, originally posted HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Has Officially Declared War on Coal

The Obama administration [proposed] new regulations Thursday designed to reduce the impact of coal mining on the nation’s streams . . .

The proposed regulations, long anticipated, will maintain a 100-foot buffer zone adjacent to streams to prevent debris from being dumped into the water. But the rules will set clearer guidelines for companies.

A summary of the regulations obtained by The Associated Press says the rule would update reclamation practices that require companies to restore streams and return mined areas to conditions before the mining was done. (Read more from “Obama Has Officially Declared War on Coal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Believe It or Not, U.S. States Can Help Stop Iran in the Face of Obama Complicity

While there is never a replacement for fighting federal malfeasance at a federal level, there are often at least partial solutions at the state level. States might seem distant from the debate over Obama’s alliance with Iran, but they actually wield power over billions in assets and funds that could be used to indirectly thwart, at least in part, the Iran deal with the devil. States can fight back by divesting from companies that do business with Iran. Now is the time for these much-vaunted GOP governors, particularly those running for president, to step up to the plate.

In 2010, Congress passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act with near unanimous support and it was signed into law by President Obama. Section 202 of the bill explicitly grants states the authority to divest from companies that do business with Iran’s energy sector. Thirty states, beginning with Florida in 2007, passed some sort of divestment law banning state pension funds from being invested in companies that do any sort of business with Iran. With several trillion dollars of state and local pension funds at stake, this has been a serious leverage point against companies seeking to do business with Iran.

In addition to divesting from investments in these companies, 11 states have laws against entering into contracts with those companies and entities that do business with Iran, according data compiled by United Against Nuclear Iran.

Not only should these states continue their divestments even if Congress fails to block the deal, they should expand the sanctions.

Now is the time for presidential candidates like Chris Christie, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, and Scott Walker to shine. Scott Walker especially has an opportunity to go on offense because Wisconsin has yet to pass anti-Iran legislation.

There are also a number of red states that currently have no divestment legislation where conservatives could easily mount an anti-Iran campaign. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia are all good targets.

Part of what is fueling this rapid push to remove sanctions is that the global business community is hungry to do business with a large country that has been untapped. A strong message from the states would go a long way in disrupting their pursuit of appeasement and would help build momentum and outrage against the immoral alliance with Iran.

Obama and his allies will undoubtedly sue the states in court for thwarting new federal laws over international commerce. And indeed, section 25 of the deal (page 18) directs the federal government to “take appropriate steps” to ensure that states are not blocking implementation of sanctions relief. This provision is also in a 14-page draft resolution UN Ambassador Samantha Power plans to submit before the UN Security Council early next week. [As an aside, this is exactly the sort of anti-sovereignty language that conservatives fear in international agreements such as TPP and TISA.] But this is not federal law; it is an international treaty that is counter to federal laws on the books and can only be overturned via ratification with two-thirds support in the Senate. This deal will never be properly ratified, and is thereby null and void as it relates to existing federal sanctions and the ability of states to uphold federal law.

There is not much time for this to work. The Obama administration is acting with lightning speed to implement this colossal disaster. If there was ever an opportunity for governors to show some leadership, that time is now.

Any takers? (“How States Can Help Stop Iran”, originally posted HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Robots Denounce Child-Bearing as ‘Immoral’

As the world’s robotic development becomes more mature, there have been no shortage of experts who have predicted seismic cultural, economic and social changes on the horizon for our planet.

But one of the little-discussed aspects of robotics is the development of AI – artificial intelligence – even though it is one of the most rapidly advancing computer science disciplines.

Much of AI relies on development of a scientific process known as conversational modeling, which – up to this point – has been rudimentary. But all of that is changing; devices – computers, robots, any device utilizing AI – are becoming much more mature.

Case in point: A new Google AI bot that lectured a human researcher during trials recently who was attempting to get a definition of morality.

“The project studied conversational modeling, the prediction on what should come next within dialogues, which is a key to understanding natural language and artificial intelligence,” Tech Times reported. . .

As documented further in the research study, during one Q & A with the AI robot, the researcher asked, “What is immoral?”

The machine answered, “The fact that you have a child.”

(Read more from “Robots Denounce Child-Bearing as ‘Immoral'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bioethicist Reveals Biggest Concerns Over Undercover Planned Parenthood Footage

Questions continue to surround an activist group’s undercover video that purports to show a Planned Parenthood physician admitting that her organization is involved in illegally selling fetal parts.

While activists have doubled down, Planned Parenthood responded on Tuesday by dismissing the allegation and claiming that its clinics simply help women who wish to donate the tissue of aborted fetuses to scientific research. On the other hand, Snopes.com, a fact-checking website, labeled the claim against Planned Parenthood by the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life group, as “undetermined” based on the evidence.

Clearly, discussion and debate continue, though at least two bioethicists have expressed some concerns about what’s observed in the footage.

Dr. Dennis Sullivan, director of the Center for Bioethics at Cedarville University Cedarville, Ohio, told TheBlaze on Wednesday that comments in the controversial video from Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s senior director of medical services, do not definitively show that the organization is selling fetal parts, adding that the dynamic is a complicated one.

“The issue really settles around the legality of what can be done with the tissue [taken during] a legal procedure,” Sullivan said. “What is legal is that human fetal tissue can be donated with the request of the woman who’s undergoing the procedure.” (Read more from “Bioethicist Reveals Biggest Concerns Over Undercover Planned Parenthood Footage” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Was He Abducted? Desperate Search for Young Boy Missing From Camp

Authorities were scouring the area around a remote mountainous campground in Idaho Thursday for any sign of a 2-year-old boy who disappeared from the site nearly one week ago.

The parents of 2-year-old Deorr Kunz told police their son wandered away last Friday from the family’s campsite near the Timber Creek Reservoir in Leodore, Idaho.

Authorities received a 911 call at approximately 2:30 p.m. Friday from the child’s mother, Jessica Mitchell, of Idaho Falls, who said the boy had been missing for about an hour.

In an interview Monday with EastIdahoNews.com, the child’s parents said they believe Deorr was abducted, though Mitchell noted they did not see any other campers near their site at the time of his disappearance.

“We didn’t see people around us, we didn’t hear anybody,” Mitchell told the website. (Read more from “Was He Abducted?: Desperate Search for Young Boy Missing From Camp” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.