The start of the Trump administration has been characterized by an aggressive revamp of the federal government’s approach to artificial intelligence. During the first week, Trump published two executive orders focused on reversing Biden’s heavy-handed approach to AI. As the new admin looks into erasing other Biden-era mistakes, it should prioritize and reevaluate the recent AI export control rules drafted by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security. This rulemaking will likely become a costly unforced error that most Americans will look back on with deep regret. These rules would enact stringent export controls for various AI-related goods and services for all, except for a handful of countries deemed “low-risk.” Additionally, AI companies would be required to file and process extensive paperwork when exporting products or services abroad, and they will be subject to export caps. These restrictions would apply to essentially every country in the world, except the United Kingdom, most of the European Union, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. The Biden administration argued that this new rule would prevent AI technology from falling into the wrong hands — namely, adversarial nations. But, this rule will seriously constrain the growth of American companies and the U.S. economy. Burdening the industry with onerous licensing regimes and capping its sales will severely limit companies’ ability to expand to other markets thus reducing their global reach and stifling their ability to grow. It will also likely end up going against its stated objective and empower the Chinese AI industry, which can take advantage of the reduced presence of American companies in global markets. Unsurprisingly, AI companies have already voiced their opposition to the rule. Their reasoning is simple: the added paperwork and trade restrictions will increase their prices and slow down the distribution of their products, making American AI products less competitive globally. However, the potential buyers for these products will still look for AI products on the global market, as they also want to reap the benefits of the AI revolution. Instead of sourcing American products, they will look to those of our adversaries who can satisfy their needs for a lower price in a timely matter. The consequences of ceding the global AI market to foreign adversaries go beyond monetary value. As witnessed with social media, leading firms and their countries will likely shape the rules — both formal and informal — of the industry. In the case of social media, America’s global leadership led to an internet culture that promoted democracy, free speech, and the rule of law. This happened because their products were willingly adopted by millions of users across the world, and shaped their behavior according to the rules that governed these platforms. A China-led AI global industry could undermine these past victories, with global repercussions. Another key shortcoming of the rule is that it rewards jurisdictions that are overregulating and unduly burdening American AI companies. The BIS’s criteria to exempt countries from most of these rules was to have a regulatory framework that “prevent[s] diversion of advanced technologies,” and to have a regulatory environment that “advances national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and its allies and partners.” Exempt From the Rules Nonetheless, the list of exempted countries is heavily populated by EU countries that passed the AI Act, a burdensome regulation that will primarily target American AI companies and could potentially undermine the development of the American AI industry. The burden of European regulation has been of such a magnitude, that several American companies abstain from providing their services in the region. However, the rulemaking rewards the European market with a lower regulatory burden, while punishing other commercial and foreign policy allies that have less hostile regulatory environments. Limiting the industry’s capacity to enter into new markets will reduce its potential revenues, causing this rulemaking to do little more than harm America’s claim for global leadership in AI. The Department of Commerce’s mission is to explore and adopt avenues to streamline commerce to ensure that American companies can enter as many markets as possible. However, this rulemaking does the complete opposite by adding paperwork and friction for U.S. exports. The administration should prioritize withdrawing this rule promptly before any more damage is done. Considering the role AI will take in the future economy, this rulemaking will likely become a costly unforced error that most Americans will look back on with deep regret. READ MORE: Making Friends: AI and Companionship AI Snake Oil: Separating Hype From Reality in Artificial Intelligence Juan Londoño is the Chief Regulatory Analyst at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. The post Removing Export Rules on AI Should Be a Priority for the Trump Administration appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The short answer to the question posed in the title of this article is that it depends on how forcefully but deftly the administration can implement its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion order, and how the project will be received by Congress, courts, states, institutions, businesses, and the public. Early evidence suggests that most big businesses are not going to object, as Walmart, McDonald’s, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Harley-Davidson, Amazon, Boeing, Brown-Forman, Meta, Lowe’s, and others had already moved to wind down or terminate their DEI programs after the Supreme Court ended affirmative action in 2023 and Trump won in 2024 after committing to end DEI.  Meritocracy looks like a more responsible policy for many profit-making enterprises. (RELATED: The High-Water Mark of Woke Corporate Activism) That incentive may not apply in other areas such as academia and the nonprofit world. However, the public has recently watched public officials committed to diversity falter in Los Angeles, with the L.A. mayor having been absent in Ghana during the height of LA’s fire season. However justified, the public’s heuristic skepticism of L.A.’s DEI makes DEI’s national death more likely. Trump’s DEI order offers a good case study of executive orders in general. President Trump signed almost 200 orders covering many subjects on the first day of his return to office. The legal implications of executive orders will be of keen interest during this administration. (RELATED: Trump’s Executive Order Ends ‘Trans’ Tyranny and Protects Females) The prime DEI order Trump signed on January 21 is “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The gist is to halt DEI policies and practices as broadly as possible. The order says that DEI already “can violate the civil rights laws.” It seeks to “end illegal preferences and discrimination … Government-wide.” The order also seeks to “encourage” the private sector to end illegal discrimination by targeting cases of DEI discrimination in large corporations and entities, as well as by prohibiting the use of DEI among government contractors and in all higher educational institutions receiving federal money (that is, almost all of them). The order anticipates potential evasion of its dictates in the bureaucracy, and attempts to root out any evasions. The next day, Trump ordered all federal DEI employees to be furloughed with pay “immediately,” which he is presumed to have full authority to do. But Sen. Dick Durban (D-IL) immediately pushed back, saying on MSNBC, “We should continue to encourage individuals and agencies and corporations to do the right thing anyway,” apparently inviting active resistance by government bureaucrats to Trump’s DEI order. Later that week, Georgetown law professor Dorothy Brown, a critical race theory advocate, took another tack by calling the order “big government run amuck. Why is the federal government telling private entities who they can hire?” Legal battles are apparently brewing, which is even subtly foreshadowed in the order, which carves out free speech for classroom debate criticizing the order. Meanwhile, speaking to the Davos forum on January 24, Trump savaged DEI as “absolute nonsense.” The legality of the increasing use of executive orders by U.S. presidents has been questioned long before Trump. The overarching constitutional problem is that the president is not a monarch. However, given the originally unimagined scope of the huge federal administrative state, the massive size of federal spending, and a paralyzed Congress, the expanded use of executive orders is understandable. Yet they remain vulnerable to legal attack and will likely be one of the major battlefronts by Democrats in Lawfare 2.0 against Trump and his administration. Depending on how they are crafted and implemented, executive orders may run afoul of legislative power, judicial power, states’ rights, and citizen autonomy. For example, Congress has the power under the 14th Amendment’s Section 5 to outlaw DEI but has not done so. Does that mean that the president is crossing Congress, or will Congress prove quiescent or maybe signal approval? As to the administration’s statement that the intent is to “combat” private sector DEI as inherently “illegal,” that could be seen as a usurpation of the court’s role in interpreting what is or is not illegal under the civil rights laws and cases already on the books. As to the states, do executive orders have the force of law to restrict states if the Department of Justice pushes discrimination cases against state DEI programs? Practically speaking, a key question will be whether businesses, institutions, and the public will accept the demise of DEI as having been a possibly noble but failed experiment. Much will depend on how the administration uses its discretion in singling out particularly odious forms of DEI and selectively threatens to use its educational funding strings to get DEI at least formally out of higher education. Nonetheless, one can expect subtle underground resistance within higher education as suggested by Professor Brown’s immediate broadside swipe at Trump’s DEI order. Earlier, in 2023, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky went viral over his remarks admitting that “unstated affirmative action” occurs regardless of court rulings, at least in faculty hiring. “You can think it,” he said, “you can vote it, but …  don’t ever articulate that’s what you’re doing.” Although subtle discrimination is hard to snuff out altogether, Trump’s forceful DEI order is a major step toward meritocracy and fair play even if this particular order is potentially over-broad. Still, cribbing Browning, perhaps a president’s reach should exceed his grasp. Or what’s a heaven for? Martin Luther King, Jr. himself stretched beyond his own life to realize for others his dream of personal judgment not on skin color, but character. READ MORE: Universities Must End DEI and Implement DEI DEI and Marxism Destroy Merit and Excellence David Oedel is a professor of law at Mercer University Law School and is chair of the Constitutional Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia. The post Can an Executive Order Kill DEI? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It’s being reported that Buckley Carlson, son of Tucker Carlson, will serve as Vice President JD Vance’s deputy press secretary. He doesn’t come without experience though. Carlson’s a seasoned Capitol Hill aide. He started as a staff assistant in 2019, recently served as deputy chief of staff for Rep. Jim Banks. His appointment comes as Vance fills senior roles in his administration. But the media is freaking out about this and writing headlines about “nepotism!” which is so hypocritical. To those that don’t know, nepotism is “the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives, friends, or associates, especially by giving them jobs.” I’ll explain how this is at the heart of the media further down. JUST IN: The son of Tucker Carlson, Buckley Carlson, is set to join Vice President J.D. Vance’s office as deputy press secretary – ABC / @wsteaks pic.twitter.com/cr4V5Cl5RZ — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 27, 2025 ABC News reports: Buckley Carlson, a former Capitol Hill aide and the son of conservative media personality Tucker Carlson, is set to join Vice President JD Vance’s press office, sources tell ABC News. The younger Carlson is set to serve as Vance’s deputy press secretary, sources said. Buckley Carlson has worked as an aide on Capitol Hill since 2019, including most recently serving as deputy chief of staff to Republican Rep. Jim Banks. He first joined Banks’ office in 2019 as a staff assistant before becoming communications director in 2021. Earlier this month, Vance tapped several former employees to join his vice presidential staff in senior staff roles, including Jacob Reses, who is continuing to serve as his chief of staff. BREAKING Tucker Carlson’s son Buckley will become VP JD Vance’s Deputy Press Secretary THIS IS A MASSIVE WIN FOR AMERICA pic.twitter.com/K1t74uFdlw — MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) January 27, 2025 When it comes to nepotism, the Left excels at that. Especially the media. Which is probably why they’re so quick to pull that word out that most people rarely use or think of. Hollywood and the media run by ‘nepo babies’, those that have been the recipients of nepotism. Let’s have a quick look… Oh, please. The nepotism is real- especially with Disney/Hulu. North West was also in Lion King at Hollywood Bowl. pic.twitter.com/Fwy3ApHhQ8 — GdayAmerica (@ArtistMuse1963) December 11, 2024 O’Keefe Media Group caught on tape that Disney, run by jewish Bob Iger, will only mainly hire Jews for their C-Suite leadership positions. Nepotism much? Funny how some people think that saying Hollywood is run by jews is antisemitic. Even James O’Keefe said that in his report. But they freely admit it themselves… Wonder why the media never talks about that nepotism? It’s not nepotism. It’s Hollywood tapping the unique creative pipeline of having a complicated relationship with one’s parent. pic.twitter.com/hZZv7YLQU3 — Sridhar Ramesh (@RadishHarmers) November 8, 2021 Zooey Deschanel is another obvious example. Zooey Deschanel on being called a nepo baby “My father is a cinematographer … no one is getting jobs because [of that]” Her dad is a 6X Oscar nominee and her mother is an actress pic.twitter.com/tLDSPOgaTR — Culture Crave (@CultureCrave) April 1, 2024

According to news reports, CNN’s Jim Acosta will leave the network after working there for almost 18 years. During his career at the network, Acosta served as a correspondent between 2007 and February 2012, when he was promoted to be national political correspondent. He was promoted to senior White House correspondent in August 2013, the promoted to be chief White House correspondent on January 9, 2018. Concurrent with the beginning of the Biden administration, Acosta was named chief domestic correspondent and weekend anchor. But Acosta, whose rancorous relationship with President Trump lasted the entire four year of Trump’s firs term, was kicked out from his morning show this month by CNN and told he would henceforth anchor a show from midnight until 2am ET. According to former CNN anchor Oliver Darcy, Acosta “signaled to associates in private conversations over the weekend that he intends to depart the network after its booted him from the morning programming lineup.” On Wednesday, Acosta said to Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), “I was at the White House covering the first Trump administration when they had rioting outside of the White House. I mean, that was covered on CNN. This is not Fox. Congressman, you can‘t just spin a tale and pull the wool over people‘s eyes. This is CNN. This is the news. We are asking you to come on and tell the truth.” “And that’s why more people are watching the Cartoon Network, SpongeBob reruns right now, Jim,” Burchett fired back, continuing, “Look, I left the White House during a riot. My life was threatened. My life has been threatened within the last few weeks, yet there‘s no coverage of that. And you all continue this, this narrative of attacking Trump. You just can‘t stand the fact that he won and that America spoke.” In November 2018, President Trump got so fed up at Acosta for badgering him and refusing to relinquish the microphone at a press conference that he snapped, “That’s enough. Put down the mic. I tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN.” FULL EXCHANGE: Trump vs. @Acosta "Put down the mic…""You are a rude, terrible person…" pic.twitter.com/hdnNGd2xLc — Yahoo News (@YahooNews) November 7, 2018 In his book “The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America,” Acosta declared, “Neutrality for the sake of neutrality doesn’t serve us in the age of Trump.” In November 2020, just days after the 2020 election, Acosta fancied himself a prognosticator, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “He’s been tweeting, talking about how he won this state and that state. We have to pay attention to those tweets because he’s the president. After January 20th, he just goes back to another crack pot on the Internet.” Former CNN producer Steve Krakauer said in April 2020, “Jim Acosta wants to be famous. I’ve written before, three years ago, that Acosta clearly aspires to use this opportunity to spar with President Trump, #Resistance Signal on Twitter and generally build his brand to move on to bigger things — a prime time show maybe, or at least a few late-night TV appearances. … Jim Acosta loves nothing more than Jim Acosta.”

Michael Jackson’s life and legacy face renewed examination, as filmmakers grapple with the sensitive task of creating a biopic amidst the backdrop of Jordy Chandler’s allegations. This challenge intertwines legal battles, artist fervor, and public intrigue, leaving many wondering how the final narrative will unfold. A Complex Friendship Turned Allegation In the early 1990s, Jordy Chandler, a young fan, began corresponding with Michael Jackson, weaving his way into the pop star’s inner circle. This relationship turned controversial when Chandler accused Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993, sparking a media frenzy and leading to a $23 million settlement. Despite the settlement, Jackson maintained his innocence and was never legally charged. The settlement, bound by non-disclosure agreements, ensured silence from the Chandlers regarding the accusations. After the proceedings, Jordy largely disappeared from public life, moving to Germany briefly before resettling in Los Angeles. Reports suggest he has since changed his name to maintain privacy. Michael Jackson fans are going insane in the replies here Puck is one of the most reliable sources in Hollywood, just as reliable as the trades. Just because you don’t like the news doesn’t mean it isn’t true! https://t.co/5n0T0N35DR pic.twitter.com/A8vfrQgImz — Jacob (@JacobFisherDF) January 24, 2025 Implications for Filmmakers Filmmakers now face the daunting task of portraying these events in a manner that is both factual and respectful of Jackson’s artistic contributions. The biopic “Michael,” already facing delays due to legal concerns linked to the Chandler case, must tread carefully to balance these aspects effectively. This task includes addressing the various chapters in Jackson’s life without detracting from his musical legacy. “[The Jacksons] were sure they wanted to protect Michael — they did not want the Chandlers going out and telling a story about Michael and Michael having to defend himself. And I wanted to protect the Chandlers on the same side.” – Larry Feldman With the shadow of these allegations looming, any narrative risks alienation on all sides—supporters of Jackson, critics, and those keenly interested in truth. The filmmakers’ approach must ensure that the biopic’s reception does not outshine its deeper investigations into the human and cultural dimensions at play. Lingering Impact and Future Prospects The Chandler allegations, referred to by the family as a “cancer,” have left a long-lasting impact on all involved. Despite Evan Chandler’s unfortunate demise in 2009, the legal and emotional fallout of the allegations continues to influence decisions around Michael’s biographical undertakings. Continued public interest suggests that any future portrayal of Jackson must consider these intricate dynamics. In doing so, filmmakers and audiences alike can perhaps reach a deeper understanding of a story that has captivated and divided fans for decades, awaiting its next chapter in the form of film. Sources: Tragedy of Michael Jackson’s first sex abuse accuser: Jordy Chandler won $23million settlement but changed his identity to be ‘a normal kid’ Michael Jackson biopic undergoes reshoots to address legal complications | The Business Standard The post Exploring Filmmaking Hurdles in Michael Jackson Movies Amid Sensitive Allegations appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Shouldn't we put as much thought into our pet's diets as we do our own? You don't like processed food that's pumped full of chemicals, so why would your dog? You can combine carbohydrates, to give your pooch energy, and proteins, to help build its tissues through an array of recipes. You can also touch up on much needed amino and fatty acids, to improve your doggy's hair and skin, these same fats assist with brain development and vision wellness. And with all this in mind, we've got a great recipe below for a yummy homemade chicken liver and veggie stew. So, why not try it? You’ve got nothing to lose and everything to gain. Let’s get cookin’ and cheers to our favorite furry friends!   You Will Need: 2 lbs raw chicken livers (3 containers) – remember, you can also use beef liver 2 cup of cooked brown rice, set aside 1 cup of chopped carrots 1 chopped broccoli, 2 cup of water 1 teaspoon olive oil for pan   Beef liver is an acceptable substitute for chicken liver. (via the Elliott Homestead, click here for full tutorial)   Step 1. Chop the liver (chicken or beef), carrots and broccoli into bite sizes. (via Happy Zombie, click here for full tutorial)   Step 2. Brown the the liver in a hot skillet with the olive oil. (via Food Culture, click here for full tutorial) Step 3. Add water to make a simmering “gravy.” You can add the leftover liquid, mainly the blood, from the containers. Don't add salt or seasoning, dogs don’t need (or want) additives. (via Food Culture, click here for full tutorial)   Step 4. After adding the liquid, allow the liver simmer on medium heat until all traces of pink are gone. Once the liver is thoroughly cooked add in the carrots and broccoli and let them cook for a few minutes.   Step 5. Cook them long enough so they become one with the liver stew – but hard enough so they retain as much raw goodness and nutrition as possible. Add water as needed. Allow to cool down and add in empty containers. (via Happy Zombie, click here for full tutorial)   Step 6. Make sure you save some freshly made, yet cooled down, stew for your pooch and serve it up! (via Happy Zombie, click here for full tutorial)   Just so You Know: We love sharing our homemade recipes with you – this one was inspired by Happy Zombie, so much thanks for a recipe that we can all revisit and refer to in order to keep our furry friends in tip-top shape. Let's remember to treat our dogs the very best that we can and that feeding them homemade dog food can go a long way. Ditch the generic doggy bag and dine with your dog at home today!    

Conservatives wonder why J.D. Vance is wasting his time with liberals like CBS Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan. But when you watch him methodically take down every hostile question from Brennan, it's a win for him and a loss for CBS. MRC's Jorge Bonilla breaks down the battle. Brennan is going to be the Washington presence on the new CBS Evening News. They promise she will “regularly lead coverage from Washington, D.C., when news breaks on the political and foreign affairs fronts.” You might remember Brennan from the aftermath of Trump being shot last year. She seemed to blame Trump for his own assassination, or that he wasn’t presidential enough: “There was no call for lowering the temperature, condemning all political violence, and really trying to signal to his supporters as well not to retaliate.” Vance chose CBS for his first TV interview since becoming Vice President. Brennan threw one hardball after another, and from the conservative viewpoint, he kept slamming the ball all over the park. It can't be a game of "gotcha" if the interviewee is never "got." But it's not for lack of trying. Brennan asked about Pete Hegseth to the Pentagon: "If the nominee can't unite your party, how is he going to lead three million people?" She quoted National Review and The Wall Street Journal -- for their strong denunciations of Tulsi Gabbard.  She suggested they weren't doing anything about inflation: "You campaigned on lowering prices for consumers. We've seen all of these executive orders. Which one lowers prices?" Serious snobbery broke out on the question of ending FEMA and just granting money to the states for emergencies. Brennan asked whether the "lower-income states, the Mississippis, the Kentuckys, the Alabamas, [would] be able to do this for themselves without federal help?" Brennan challenged the Catholic vice president with the American church leaders: "The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this week condemned some of the executive orders signed by President Trump, specifically those allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enter churches and to enter schools. Do you personally support the idea of conducting a raid or enforcement action in a church service, at a school?" Vance emphatically did, noting no other law-enforcement agency is barred from entering those buildings. On ABC's This Week, host Martha Raddatz peppered Trump border czar Tom Homan with similar questions:  The administration said it will no longer tell ICE agents they have to avoid sensitive locations including schools, hospitals, churches. Benjamin Huffman, the acting Homeland Security Secretary, said in a statement: “criminals will no longer be able to hide in America's schools and churches to avoid arrest.” What criminals are hiding in schools? Middle schools? Elementary schools? You gonna go into those? Homan shot back: "How many MS-13 members are aged 14 to 17? Many of them." But our news networks don't want to report on gangsters from MS-13 or Tren de Aragua. That subject matter's too pro-Trump.  Listen to the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.