Posts

Trump Calls for American Resolve Against ‘Vile Enemy’

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump says he will do whatever is necessary to protect the United States from a “vile enemy” that he says has waged war on innocents for too long, vowing: “This bloodshed must end, this bloodshed will end.”

Trump commented on the vehicle and knife attack that killed at least seven people in London at the conclusion of a Sunday night fundraiser for Ford’s Theater, scene of one of the most famous acts of bloodshed in American history: the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.

“America sends our thoughts and prayers and our deepest sympathies to the victims of this evil slaughter and we renew our resolve, stronger than ever before, to protect the United States and its allies from a vile enemy that has waged war on innocent life, and it’s gone on too long,” Trump said in his first comments in public on the attack late Saturday in a busy section of London. He previously had commented via a series of Twitter posts. (Read more from “Trump Calls for American Resolve Against ‘Vile Enemy'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Doesn’t Like So Many Anonymous Sources, and Neither Do These Journalism Experts

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last week, when pressed to answer questions about reports that Jared Kushner set up back-channel communications with the Russian government, White House press secretary Sean Spicer frequently responded by considering the source—or lack thereof.

“I’m not going to dignify partisan accusations of anonymous sources and alleged—unsubstantiated attacks,” Spicer told reporters Tuesday during exchanges that became testy at times when answering questions about President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser.

The use of anonymous sources in stories critical of the president have been under the Trump White House’s skin for some time, though Rick Edmonds, a media business analyst at the Poynter Institute, which studies journalism and the media, wasn’t sure there are more stories based on anonymous sources under Trump than past presidents.

“Anonymous sources are bad in theory, because generally, journalists should try to get people on the record,” Edmonds told The Daily Signal. “But sometimes that is the only way to get ledes and background. If a reporter stands on principle and says, ‘I will not do that,’ they will miss out on information.”

Edmonds said there is typically a different set of rules in Washington than at news outlets in other places.

Most of the anonymously sourced stories have been about alleged ties to Trump and Russia. Other frequent topics are about infighting in the White House.

During his speech in late February, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland, Trump went so far as to accuse the media of making up anonymous sources.

“I’m against people that make up stories and make up sources,” Trump said. “They shouldn’t be allowed to use sources unless they use the name. ‘A source says Donald Trump is a horrible human being.’ Let them say it to my face. There are some great reporters, honest, talented as the day is long. But also dishonest people doing a disservice to the country.”

The Society of Professional Journalists tightened the organization’s code of ethics in 2014 to dissuade the use of anonymous sources. It calls for journalists to “identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability,” and to “always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.”

The Associated Press Stylebook lays out the parameters for using anonymous sources. The stylebook says:

Under AP’s rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:

The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.

The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.

The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.

Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news managers.

Explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information.

The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source’s credibility; simply quoting a source is not allowed. Be as descriptive as possible about the source of information.

“If you have to attribute facts to an anonymous source to nail down the story, that is one matter,” Edmonds said. “What I dislike is opinion, simply pushing negative opinions and using anonymity as cover.”

A major problem with nameless, faceless sources is that the motives of the leakers for the anti-Trump stories “might be pure, or could be poisonous,” wrote Brent Bozell and Tim Graham, of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group. Regarding recent stories in The Washington Post, they wrote:

Earth to the Post: your new motto is ‘Democracy dies in darkness,’ but anonymous sourcing is darkness. Every source who hides behind a wall as he tries to ruin other people’s careers is a self-serving coward with a personal or political ax to grind. Without knowing an identity, the public has no way of telling … anything. It’s idiotic for the press to demand transparency in government at the exact same time it rewards government officials who refuse to be transparent themselves.

Journalists pat themselves on the back that they would never be ‘stenographers to power,’ but they’re worse than that now. In their zeal to destroy Trump, they’ve become stenographers to anonymous power.

The use of anonymous sources prompted controversy on the left and the right. In 2003, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair was fired for fabricating stories based in part on anonymous sources. Also, New York Times reporter Judith Miller came under heavy scrutiny for reporting—based largely on anonymous government sources—about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

Paul Steiger, a former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal and founder of ProPublica, noted that leaks are absolutely needed to get to the truth.

“It is not the publishing of these secrets that threatens national security. Publishing these secrets threatens the secret-keepers,” Steiger said. “It protects the public interest by letting us know what powerful people are doing when they think no one is looking … We need more journalists revealing more secrets, not fewer.”

Margaret Sullivan, a media columnist for The Washington Post and a former public editor for The New York Times, noted famous instances of anonymous source usage such as Edward Snowden and surveillance of Americans during the Obama administration, going back to the Pentagon Papers and Watergate during the Nixon years. Sullivan wrote:

In a government increasingly obsessed with secrecy, and guilty of rampant overclassification, leaks are necessary and, largely, a very good thing.

And although there are legitimate national security concerns in some cases, I’d far rather live in a leaky America than one sealed up tight—with whistleblowers and journalists behind bars.

Identifying sources is particularly important today when so many people are throwing around the phrase “fake news,” said Andrew Seaman, the Society of Professional Journalists ethics chairman.

“The public has the right to know as much as possible about a story, including the messenger, who should be identified,” said Seaman, a journalist with Reuters.

He noted that Washington journalists were resistant to the change in 2014, and insisted anonymous sourcing is “the way Washington works.” The Society of Professional Journalists doesn’t have to approve of how Washington works, he added.

“Anonymous sources can be important, but journalists also need to be more aggressive and push a source to go on the record,” he said. “First ask, where else does this exist? It’s very rare that only one person knows about something in government.”

An example of using someone off the record to steer in the right direction would be the most famous anonymous source of all, Deep Throat of Watergate, who turned out to be the former No. 2 at the FBI, Mark Felt. He was never quoted in Washington Post stories by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, but rather guided them on where to look. That said, the Watergate stories still included many other anonymous sources.

Ultimately, government officials at the highest levels have an obligation to be transparent, he said.

“An uptick in anonymous sources often happens as access becomes more scarce with shorter and fewer press briefings,” Seaman said. “If the administration wants to cut back on anonymous sources, they will be more transparent and open.” (For more from the author of “Trump Doesn’t Like So Many Anonymous Sources, and Neither Do These Journalism Experts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russia Probe Counsel Now Has Ex-Trump Campaign Chief in View

/0 Comments/in , /by

The special counsel investigating possible ties between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia’s government has taken over a separate criminal probe involving former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and may expand his inquiry to investigate the roles of the attorney general and deputy attorney general in the firing of FBI Director James Comey, The Associated Press has learned.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told the AP in a separate interview that he would step aside from any oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller if he were to become a subject of Mueller’s investigation.

The Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Manafort predated the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August amid questions over his business dealings years ago in Ukraine. (Read more from “Russia Probe Counsel Now Has Ex-Trump Campaign Chief in View” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Paris Agreement Decision Shows He’s Not Afraid of Defying Global Elites

/0 Comments/in , /by

All the heroes carrying the fate of the world on their shoulders phoned in to NPR Friday morning. Former Secretary of State John Kerry, Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna, and business magnate Richard Branson, all nearly snarling, attempted to cultivate hatred and mistrust toward President Donald Trump following his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Phony high-mindedness is also being deployed against Trump. French President Emmanuel Macron, for instance, went around America’s head of state and chief representative to flatter the American public, reassuring the American public that France and the world still “believes in you.”

That global elites feel sufficient self-confidence to attempt to publicly shame the president of the United States is partly because other U.S. presidents have typically succumbed to similar pressures long before they became public.

Yet few arguments against Trump reveal as much as a recent Washington Post headline: “Trump made up his mind on Paris. Now the rest of the world will do the same on him.” In other words, the U.S. president’s deliberations should be derived from fear of elite ire, speaking on behalf of a world majority.

Leveraging the alleged authority of the majority—not a national majority, but that of the world itself—Trump’s critics cite the fact that America, Nicaragua, and Syria are the only nations not subject to the Paris accord. The dogma that majorities are wise—half-believed, half-used as manipulation by advocates—is striking partly because of the elevation of nations like Iran and North Korea, suddenly viewed as committed environmentalists.

Using similar arguments, the Obama administration worked hard to obligate the American public, despite itself, to agreements that appeared to be treaties, but that have none of the legal or moral authority. The Iran agreement, for instance, proceeded in this way. From its example, one learned not only that such agreements are unenforceable, but that they contain a host of cash transfers, which would never stand the light of investigative inquiry if they were real treaties.

More importantly, obligating the entire nation for generations to come requires Senate ratification, for no small reason. That is because the public should consent to being obligated to going to war, like in case of violation of the Iran deal, or of transferring billions of dollars to other nations, while stifling domestic interests, like in the case of the Paris Agreement.

This Obama-era approach in practice means rule not by the U.S. Senate, but rule by elite international opinion, hiding behind a seeming majoritarian consensus. These opinion makers, feeling neither moral obligations to the well-being of any particular nation, nor under any check to carry out their promises, aim to replace the deliberative function of the Senate.

Trump is right to not cave to this breed of influence. If the agreement is suitable for the U.S., the Senate must debate the matter and gain the public’s consent. Without this, public trust and republican honor are undermined, and our constitutional institutions are replaced with rule by international pressure. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Paris Agreement Decision Shows He’s Not Afraid of Defying Global Elites” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Small Opening Shot on Global Warming

/0 Comments/in , /by

On June 1 President Donald Trump (a) took a giant bite out of the fairy tale of man-made global warming and (b) put a big check mark in his list of campaign promises kept. Other nations will slowly also defect from the Paris Accords, although we will endure hysteria for one or several years first.

Trump gave a lot of solid, irrefutable reasons for the United States to withdraw from the “Paris Accord” on climate change. President Barack Obama evaded the U.S. Senate’s power to ratify treaties. Any responsible President really had no choice. It was called a treaty by most other nations who signed it. lthough it is a treaty, the Senate never ratified it. It undermined the Constitution.

However, Republicans desperately avoid the central issue. Man-made global warming is the biggest hoax since P.T. Barnum. Neither Trump nor other Republican officials will confront the fact that it is a scam. By playing the “I don’t know” game, Republicans are encouraging massive lawsuits from other countries that will drain U.S. companies of hundreds of billions of dollars.

In fact, liberal lawyers will now try to over-rule the President’s decision. Remember that the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled in favor of the climate change fantasy in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). The Supreme Court forced the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide because Massachusetts’ frozen beaches might warm up and become more tourist-friendly. The Supremes already fell for the sob story once that the planet is in danger.

So, we must stop tip-toeing around with weak arguments. Let’s get serious:

First, we know that the Earth’s orbit changes over time, in overlapping Milankovicth cycles, which affect the Earth’s climate. Cyclical changes in the shape and size of Earth’s orbit cause ice ages. We are now still in a long-term warming trend coming out of the last ice age, having nothing to do with humans. The gravitational pull of the other planets tugs Earth into more oval or circular orbits (and back again) over thousands of years.

Second, consider how absurd the hoax is: What was the temperature of planet Earth just yesterday? Does anyone know? Yes, I mean one single temperature reading for the entire planet. We’d have to average the temperature measurements from all over the planet. But we don’t measure the whole planet, only isolated airports, cities, and selected sites. (Sampling is only predictive if it is truly random.) Temperature changes are overwhelmingly a result of air masses moving around, including to or from places where we don’t have measurements. We don’t know what Earth’s temperature was yesterday. How can we say what it was millions of years ago or will be a hundred years from now?

Third, temperature scales were only invented in the mid-1850s. So there was no way to keep meaningful temperature records before about the 1880s. Scientific instruments have to be calibrated for consistency among different manufacturers and different units. Otherwise, different thermometers will not measure temperatures consistently. And then only a few cities had thermometers. People didn’t start keeping meticulous records right away even in the few locations measured. It wasn’t until airplanes needed to know the weather at airports in World War I and II that humans began to keep serious temperature records. Although the ancient Greeks understood the concept of a thermometer, nobody maintained historical records.

Fourth, climate alarmists have been caught falsifying temperature data. Meteorologist Anthony Watts with others discovered that from one year to the next climate alarmists keep reducing the temperatures of past years to make it look like current temperatures are rising. They published temperature data and then changed that in later versions to falsely create the appearance of a rising trend.

Fifth, as the “Surface Station Project” proved, temperature measurements are faulty. An audit by a huge team of volunteer meteorologists led by Anthony Watts conducted site visits and audits of the temperature measurement stations (which are mostly automated). They found that at least 80% of the stations that are measuring temperature do not comply with siting standards and are flawed. Some weather stations sit next to the hot exhaust of industrial office building air conditioners or in the path of the jet exhaust from jet airplanes at airports. Garbage in / garbage out.

Sixth, the geologic record shows that for millions of years atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased an average of 800 years after a rise in global temperature. CO2 does not cause a warming Earth. A warming Earth causes higher quantities of CO2, probably released from solution in the oceans.

Seventh, when the Earth was showing some slight warming, Mars, Pluto, and the moon Triton were also warming according to NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Jupiter and Saturn showed increase storm activity consistent with warming. Any cause of a warming Earth in the short term affected the entire solar system, not merely our planet alone. (Cycles in the “swinging sun” discovered by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt affect the heat of the sun.)

Eighth, there has never been any experimental analysis or investigation into the idea that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes the Earth to warm.

Global warming—like most modern faux science—rests on a metaphor. Unable to actually conduct real experiments, fiction writers calling themselves scientists create metaphors and then get lost in their metaphors.

The idea is that CO2 absorbs heat. Well, everything absorbs heat. Hold your hand over a candle and feel how your hand absorbs heat. (Some substances hold heat better than others.)

The crucial error of climate alarmism is that CO2 does not stay at the Earth’s surface. Hot air rises—up towards the thin upper atmosphere. From there, gases often radiate their heat into outer space. Could CO2 function as a conveyor belt transporting heat from the Earth’s surface out to space? We don’t know. There are no experiments that have ever tested what happens.

The metaphor is that CO2 in the atmosphere functions “like a blanket.” But blankets don’t float around the room. There have never been any experiments as to how CO2 behaves in the open atmosphere, in the complex global climate system. The fact that CO2 absorbs heat in the laboratory does not tell us what happens in the planetary climate.

Liberals are now hysterical that we are going to lose “green jobs” as if they are fooling anyone. I might be about the only climate realist in America who has actually installed solar electric panels (photo-voltaic cells). I helped my father design and build, with a worker, the wooden frame in his yard, and I wired most of the panels while my Dad set up the inverter boxes. I have been shocked several times by 600 volts D.C. as the wires fell loose and touched my head or shoulders. However, even with 60 solar panels—all imported from China—in the Southern sun (the newer, more powerful kind at 280 watts), the solar panels don’t generate enough electricity to fully power the house for an entire 24 hours. The sun only generates electricity for about 6 to 7 hours a day, from 10:00 AM to 4:30 PM.

The prospect of green jobs and a green economy—kick-started by government meddling in the market-place—is as big a fairy tale as man-made global warming itself.

Contact for Adm. Lyons: Lilian (703) 519-5600

Contact for Conservative Commandos Radio

Jonathon Moseley (703) 656-1230

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Supporter: Portland Mayor Spread Lie, I Got Death Threats

/0 Comments/in , /by

After Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler referred to two upcoming conservative political rallies as “alt-right demonstrations” peddling “hatred and bigotry,” the event organizers are pushing back.

“I am calling on the federal government to immediately revoke the permit(s) they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th,” Wheeler wrote on Twitter. He cited the deadly knife attack by Jeremy Christian, a homeless man with a violent criminal history, as reason for the proposed free-speech bans.

The ACLU of Oregon also weighed in on the controversy, pointing out that Wheeler’s call for censorship is unconstitutional.

Joey Gibson, a libertarian activist and founder of Patriot Prayer, organized the June 4 pro-Trump free speech rally. Gibson vehemently rejects Wheeler’s characterizations and called him irresponsible.

“If they spread this lie and people believe it, people are going to try and hurt someone,” Gibson said. “It’s irresponsible, especially coming from the mayor — a guy who is supposed to be the leader of his city.”

Gibson said he has received death threats from people who believe he is connected or allied with Jeremy Christian based on local reports. “I’m used to threats, but this time it’s different because people literally want to kill me,” he said. “I know nothing of Jeremy. He showed up to one of our marches with a bat and was extremely hateful. We eventually were able to kick him out.”

In late April, Gibson organized a free speech rally in east Portland after the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade was canceled following violent threats towards the Multnomah County Republicans.

Christian attended the rally but was kicked out by organizers after doing Nazi Roman salutes and going on a racist tirade. Gibson added that he never saw Christian before or after that incident on April 29.

Gibson directed particular frustration at Willamette Week, an alternative Portland newspaper, for its recent profiling of him and his group in its report on white supremacists and the Alt-Right. Gibson claims that Wheeler told him that Willamette Week’s reporting “set the narrative for him” in a meeting that included the Portland Police chief on May 30.

One of the speakers scheduled for Gibson’s June 4 event includes controversial figure Kyle Chapman, aka Based Stickman. Chapman gained infamy when he was recorded fighting Antifa protesters at a free speech rally in Berkeley earlier this year.

Scott Pressler, an activist with ACT for America, the national security nonprofit founded by Brigitte Gabriel, was involved in organizing the June 10 “March Against Sharia, March for Human Rights” event. The rally is part of a nationwide march in two-dozen cities against Islamic fundamentalism, according to the event page.

In a statement, Pressler announced that the Portland event was canceled following what he said was a gross misrepresentation of the group by the mayor which endangered its members.

“Our organization is not an alt-right group,” Pressler wrote. “In fact, as a gay man who works for a Lebanese-American survivor of terrorism, I am offended that the mayor would use his position as political leverage over an organization trying to stop female genital mutilation.”

The statement continues: “By his inflaming emotions and labeling us as antagonists, Mayor Wheeler has endangered the safety of everyone scheduled to participate. For this reason, and to protect our members from the radical left, we are cancelling the Portland march.”

Ahead of the June 4 free speech rally, a flier left at the impromptu memorial at the Hollywood transit center included the Rose City Antifa logo and advertised a “group self-defense” training workshop. A prominently displayed graphic image shows a chainsaw cutting into President Donald Trump’s head. “Love trumps hate, chainsaw trumps love,” the flier reads.

A Facebook post by a group called Demand Utopia noted that the training had been canceled on Friday due to security concerns. “Someone in the community not affiliated with our group made a poor decision in creating a flyer that erroneously depicted this event as hosted by “antifa” and a training for June 4 along with violent images.”

Following the TriMet train attack on May 26, Portlanders have been divided on how to move forward. At the memorial, many chalk messages blamed the Portland Police, even though they apprehended Christian after he escaped on foot.

Other messages blamed Trump since the suspect allegedly hurled xenophobic verbal abuse at two teenagers before he knifed three men, killing two.

Christian’s social media record shows contradictory political views that make labeling him in simplistic terms difficult. He expressed support for Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, and Black Lives Matter and made references to white nationalism and neo-Nazi paganism.

At Christian’s first court hearing on May 30, he yelled incoherently about free speech and patriotism, undoubtedly bringing additional scrutiny to Gibson’s free speech event on Sunday. However, Gibson said he has no plans to cancel the rally. (For more from the author of “Trump Supporter: Portland Mayor Spread Lie, I Got Death Threats” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Officially Announces Paris Agreement Withdrawal in Rose Garden

/0 Comments/in , /by

“We’re getting out.”

President Donald Trump announced Thursday afternoon the United States is withdrawing from the U.N.’s Paris Climate Agreement. During remarks in the Rose Garden, Trump repeatedly stressed his “America first” philosophy in making the decision.

“Withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate,” he said. Trump argued the agreement would have distributed America’s wealth to other nations. The “bad deal” would have hurt American workers, he insisted.

The announcement is the fulfillment of a campaign promise Trump made a year ago. During his first campaign speech detailing his energy policies, then-candidate Trump pledged to cancel the agreement if elected. The agreement was adopted in December of 2015 by 190 countries. President Barack Obama officially joined in September 2016. One hundred and ninety-five nations ultimately signed on.

The agreement requires all joining members to curb their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. It also pursues “efforts to limit the [global] temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.”

“Someday we may see this as the moment that we finally decided to save our planet,” Obama said when he joined the agreement.

But conservatives have been critical from the beginning. The treaty was not ratified by the Senate, a violation of the Constitution’s Treaty Clause. Others claimed it is unsubstantial while extremely costly. Trump voters and conservatives pushed for him to keep his promise as he joined other world leaders at last week’s G-7 summit.

Trump came under pressure from leaders, even Pope Francis, to uphold the treaty. But efforts to change his mind, including from Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, proved fruitless. Trump said he listened to “a lot of people both ways.” But Thursday government officials confirmed his withdrawal was “official.”

Dr. Calvin Beisner wrote for The Stream that full implementation of the Paris Agreement would lower the global temperature only 0.3ºF by 2100. Trump’s administration emphasized this point.

During his Rose Garden remarks, Trump declared he was willing to team with Democrats to either rework the agreement or forge a new, better climate deal.

Democrats are not responding in kind. Former Vice President Joe Biden quickly tweeted:

Former Vice President Al Gore whose global warming efforts have earned him an Oscar and hundreds of millions of dollars issued a statement:

However, President Trump made clear he wasn’t concerned about America’s “standing” in the world.

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump said.

(For more from the author of “Trump Officially Announces Paris Agreement Withdrawal in Rose Garden” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Blames America First

/0 Comments/in , /by

In one of the great scenes in American cinema, Jake Blues (John Belushi) of the Blues Brothers, explains — at gunpoint — to his ex-fiancee (Carrie Fischer) why he left her at the altar.

“I ran out of gas! I had a flat tire! I didn’t have enough money for cab fare! My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn’t my fault! I swear to God.”

I kept thinking of that scene as I watched Hillary Clinton on Wednesday run through all of the reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential race.

At a conference hosted by Recode, Mrs. Clinton said, “I take responsibility for every decision I make — but that’s not why I lost.”

The real reasons for her defeat include, but are not limited to: FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the investigation into her email server, the institutional ineptitude of the DNC, Facebook, Macedonian “fake news” websites, real news (in the form of unfair coverage from the New York Times and other mainstream outlets), voter suppression in Wisconsin, low-information voters, the billionaire Mercer family and the deep-seated sexism of the American people. (Read more from “Hillary Blames America First” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kathy Griffin Is Not the Only One Guilty of Anti-Trump Hysteria

/0 Comments/in , /by

Without a doubt, Kathy Griffin crossed a dark and ugly line when she posted her instantly infamous, beheading picture. And she’s suffering the consequences for her foolish actions. But is she alone to blame? Have not others contributed to the toxic atmosphere that provided the backdrop for her misdeed?

She alone is responsible for her decisions. And she took responsibility for those decisions in her apology. No one made her do what she did. No one pressured her or coerced her. She made a choice, and she’ll have to live with it.

But she’s not alone in terms of the unhealthy, anti-Trump hysteria that has rocked the nation. Without that hysterical backdrop, I don’t think she would have had the audacity to go as far as she did.

Culture of Hysteria

In January of this year, Madonna stirred up an anti-Trump women’s march, saying, “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything.”

And how did the women respond? With shock or with delight?

She said, “It took this horrific moment of darkness to wake us the f____ up.” And she led the women in chanting to the newly elected president, “I’m not your b­_____.”

Naturally, she had to walk back some of her comments. She said they were taken out of context, leading to ridiculous headlines like this on CNN: “Madonna: ‘Blowing up White House’ taken out of context.”

In reality, her comments only made sense in context, and it was a context that these angry women devoured with glee.

Just a few weeks before Madonna’s rant, Charlie Sheen tweeted out his prayer request that Trump be the next famous person to die in 2016: “Dear God; Trump next, please! Trump next, please! Trump next, please! Trump next, please! Trump next, please! Trump next, please!”

Kathy Griffin’s sin was to articulate what these other celebrities wished for and longed for. The murderous hatred was already there.

But it’s not just singers and actors and comedians who have stirred up anti-Trump hysteria in America. Politicians have done it too.

Naturally, their words are more measured than those of entertainers like Madonna and Charlie Sheen. But their constant talk of impeachment and their over the top criticisms of the president give the impression that there is a ticking bomb in the White House, ready to explode at any time. Put another way, Donald Trump is a real threat to our nation and the world.

To be sure, I agree with Sen. Ted Cruz that some of the president’s problems are self-inflicted. During the campaign, he made his own over-the-top statements, and he was hurt by very vulgar comments from his past. Since elected, every time he has behaved in an unpresidential manner, he has made himself a bigger target for his critics.

But none of that justifies the sustained political attack he is experiencing. We’re now at the point that Rep. Maxine Waters could even claim that the public is “getting weary” with the Democrats for not impeaching Trump.

And impeaching him for what? Having two scoops of ice cream at dinner while his guests only got one? Or is he worthy of impeachment because he has been accused of stealing the election from Hillary Clinton with the help of Russia? Since when do you impeach someone based on unsubstantiated accusations?

Weak Condemnations

Also contributing to the anti-Trump hysteria is the mainstream media with their incessant Trump-bashing. They excoriate him for virtually everything he says and does, always looking to finding fault, to embarrass, to hamstring him at every turn.

Watching some news reports, you get the feeling that there is almost an immature fixation on the president. Experienced news commentators suddenly sound like chattering children.

As for their reaction to the Kathy Griffin photo: While there was widespread media condemnation of her actions, in some circles, the criticism was muted.

For example, when Jake Tapper introduced the photo during a CNN panel discussion, he gave a warning to viewers, especially those with kids, saying, “You might find what we’re about to show you a little bit graphic …”

A little bit graphic? Really? Would he have introduced the picture the same way if it had been the severed, bloodied head of President Obama? Would CNN have even shown it?

He further described it as “pretty disgusting,” laughingly wondering how anyone would think it was appropriate. But again, would his tone have been the same had, say Tim Allen done to Obama what Kathy Griffin did to Trump?

But once the panel starting talking, things got worse — much worse. Molly Ball, a political writer with The Atlantic said she had a hard time even bringing herself to care about this. She claimed it was just another of Trump playing the always-persecuted, victim card.

As for Griffin’s actions, Ball said, “Of course, like, comedians and celebrities say dumb stuff and do dumb stuff. And, and violence is not appropriate. But I just don’t think that’s the source of President Trump’s problems.”

CNN contributor David Urban was then asked for his opinion. His response: “I think we’ve got much bigger issues to focus on than Kathy Griffin.”

Tapper then asked former White House communications director Jen Psaki for her view of the matter. She simply affirmed Urban’s assessment, saying, “Agreed.”

So, not only do major media outlets like CNN help fan the flames of anti-Trump hysteria, but they also engage in the worst kind of self-righteous hypocrisy. In this case, they downplayed the ugliness of a photo of the severed head of the president of the United States. No big deal! Just comedians being dumb. There are bigger fish to fry.

As for the image itself? It’s a “little big graphic” and “pretty disgusting.” Nothing more.

Needed: A Dose of Civility

In stark contrast, as pointed out by the Daily Wire’s John Nolte, CNN expressed outrage when a rodeo clown wore a Barack Obama mask during his act in 2013:

It should also be noted that in the past this same rodeo clown had worn a mask of presidents’ Reagan and Bush. Nevertheless, until he was properly banished from society and lost all hope of future employment, CNN pushed and pushed and pushed the story; toxified this poor guy as an example in never mocking The Precious.

Coming back to 2017, even though CNN released Griffin from her New Year’s Eve job, and even though Tapper and others have since weighed in with stronger condemnation of the photo, that initial panel discussion said it all. It reminded us that Griffin did not act in a vacuum.

For those on the left who would say, “Yeah, but the right-wing media savage President Obama,” I would agree. There’s hypocrisy on the right as well.

I would simply argue that the major players in right-wing media did not incite the same kind of anti-Obama hysteria that the left has against Trump (although I don’t justify the sins of the right any more than the sins of the left).

One More Key Player

There’s one more player that helped create the toxic platform for Griffin’s actions, but this one is somewhat nameless and faceless. It is made up of millions of people posting the most horrific comments on social media and composing the vilest graphics and videos. It is a savagery let loose by the internet. It makes some people think they can get away with feigned murder. Or even murder.

It’s time we take a deep breath, get a grip on our emotions, and ask ourselves what kind of world we want to bequeath to our children and grandchildren.

A little dose of civility, anyone? (For more from the author of “Kathy Griffin Is Not the Only One Guilty of Anti-Trump Hysteria” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull out of the Paris Agreement

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.

If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.

Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms.

Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintain the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.

The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.

In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress.

Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.

No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

Free enterprise, the rule of law, and private property are the key ingredients for prosperity. These are the principles that actually will help people in developing countries prepare for and cope with a changing climate and natural disasters, whether or not they are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in the Paris Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.

Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the U.S. to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. and China on this issue is absurd.

China has serious air quality issues (not from carbon dioxide), and Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal consumption and air monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement. There is no environmental comparison between the U.S. and China.

Other countries have a multitude of security, economic, and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from the agreement will not change that.

Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Some proponents of the Paris Agreement are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong.

Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in the agreement.

Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.

The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.

That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.

The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies and while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

The Paris Agreement was the open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.

Now, that door has thankfully been shut. (For more from the author of “4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull out of the Paris Agreement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.