Jewish GOP congressman says he was ‘run off the road' by a ‘deranged man' with a Palestinian flag: ‘Blatant antisemitic violence'
An 'unhinged, deranged man' waving a Palestinian flag attempted to run a Jewish Republican congressman off the road Thursday, the lawmaker said in a video posted on social media.
'This morning, as I was driving to work, some unhinged, deranged man decided to lay on his horn and run me off the road when he couldn't get my attention to show me a Palestinian flag,' Rep Max Miller (R-Ohio) said in a video posted on X.
'Not to mention death to Israel, death to me – that he wanted to kill me and my family,' the congressman continued. 'Thank God my daughter was not in my vehicle or anybody else at the time.'
Miller said he reported the incident to Capitol Police and local authorities.
X/@MaxMillerOH
The incident took place in Rocky River, Ohio, which is about 10 miles west of Cleveland, according to Miller.
The congressman, a former Marine Corps Reserves member, said he filed a report with Capitol Police and local authorities after the incident.
'We know who this person is and he will face justice,' Miller said.
'I will not hide in the face of this blatant antisemitic violence,' Ohio's 7th District rep added, noting that he carried on with planned meetings despite the scary incident.
'If you have an issue with a legislator, your city councilman, your mayor, anyone like that, the appropriate thing to do is to reach out to them for a phone call, to set up a meeting at one of our district offices,' Miller noted.
'What is not okay is to assault anyone, whether you're a member of Congress or anybody else within our district while you are driving to work.'
Miller served as a White House aide during President Trump's first term.
Facebook/Bernie Moreno
There were a record-breaking 9,354 incidents of antisemitic assault, harassment and vandalism across the US last year – a startling 344% increase over the past five years – according to the Anti-Defamation League.
The 12-month total for 2024 averaged more than 25 targeted anti-Jewish incidents in the US per day, more than one an hour.
Capitol Police and the Rocky River Police Department did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment on the incident involving Miller.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and other members of Democratic leadership in the lower chamber condemned the attack on Miller.
'We condemn in the strongest possible terms the attack on Congressman Max Miller and his family and are thankful they are safe,' Democratic House leaders said in a joint statement. 'The rise in political violence in this country is unacceptable.'
'This is a moment of crisis that requires Congress to act decisively in order to ensure the safety of every single Member who serves in the People's House.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
ICE Insists That Congress Needs Its Permission To Conduct Oversight
This week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released new guidance on "facility visit and engagement protocol for Members of Congress and staff." "ICE detention locations and Field Offices are secure facilities. As such, all visitors are required to comply with [identity] verification and security screening requirements prior to entry," it specified. "When planning to visit an ICE facility, ICE asks requests to be submitted at least 72 hours in advance." Incidentally, it's perfectly legal for members of Congress to visit ICE detention facilities, even unannounced. And ICE's attempt to circumvent that requirement threatens the constitutional system of checks and balances. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, which funded the government through September 2024, specified that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may not "prevent…a Member of Congress" or one of their employees "from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens" or to modify the facility in advance of such a visit. It also clarified that the DHS cannot "require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility." ICE's new guidance tries to get around this by stipulating that "ICE Field Offices are not detention facilities and fall outside of the [law's] requirements." Nevertheless, it adds that "while Member[s] of Congress are not required to provide advance notice for visits to ICE detention facilities, ICE requires a minimum of 24-hours' notice for visits by congressional staff" (emphasis in the original). Further, "visit request[s] are not considered actionable until receipt of the request is acknowledged" by ICE. The new rules also stipulate that visiting members of Congress may not bring in cellphones or recording devices, they must be escorted by ICE staff at all times, and they may not "have any physical or verbal contact with any person in ICE detention facilities unless previously requested and specifically approved by ICE Headquarters." In recent weeks, Democratic lawmakers have tried to enter ICE facilities, only to be turned away or threatened with imprisonment. Last week, authorities charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D–N.J.) with three felony counts of assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers. McIver and other lawmakers visited Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility in Newark last month. A scuffle apparently ensued when authorities arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for trespassing, though those charges were later dropped. This week, four members of Congress who visited the ICE Processing Center in Broadview, Illinois, were apparently denied access when they arrived. "We have reports that immigrants are being detained here without access to their attorneys, sleeping on the floor and without food," Rep. Chuy Garcia (D–Ill.), one of the members in attendance, alleged in a post on X. The DHS replied from its official account, "Congressman, all members and staff need to comply with facility rules, procedures, and instructions from ICE personnel on site." On Wednesday, Reps. Jerry Nadler and Dan Goldman (D–N.Y.) visited an office in Manhattan where migrants were allegedly being kept, only to be denied entry by Bill Joyce, the deputy director of the field office. Joyce denied it was a detention facility, saying that even though migrants were being kept on-site, ICE was simply "housing them until they can be detained." In video captured at the scene in Manhattan, Goldman said he and Nadler had requested permission to visit—even though they "have the authority to show up unannounced"—but were denied. This isn't uncharacteristic of the agency: Earlier this year, ICE agents denied Reason's C.J. Ciaramella access to an immigration court at a federal detention facility in Miami, in defiance of both federal law and guidance listed on the agency's own website. (ICE later admitted the facility was "open daily to the public.") Regardless of the actual conditions of any ICE facility, it's clear Congress' intent was to establish its legislative oversight role over an executive agency. Checks and balances are a key feature of American government: Each of the three branches has the power to keep the others in check. For ICE to claim an all-encompassing right to operate in the dark, apart from the prying eyes of even a co-equal branch of government, flies in the face of the Constitution's clear meaning. "This unlawful policy is a smokescreen to deny Member visits to ICE offices across the country, which are holding migrants – and sometimes even U.S. citizens – for days at a time. They are therefore detention facilities and are subject to oversight and inspection at any time," Rep. Bennie Thompson (D–Miss.), the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement. "There is no valid or legal reason for denying Member access to ICE facilities and DHS's ever-changing justifications prove this….If ICE has nothing to hide, DHS must make its facilities available." The post ICE Insists That Congress Needs Its Permission To Conduct Oversight appeared first on
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump signs executive order delaying ban on TikTok
Trump signs executive order delaying ban on TikTok - again The 90-day extension marks the third time that Trump has delayed a TikTok sell-or-ban law from going into effect after it it was passed by Congress. Show Caption Hide Caption Tiktok stays as President Donald Trump extends deadline for ban President Donald Trump signed an executive order extending the deadline to ban Tiktok. WASHINGTON − President Donald Trump has again extended the deadline for a TikTok ban to go into effect, allowing the Chinese-owned social platform to continue operating for the 90 days. Trump said earlier in the week that he planned to give TikTok a third extension and signed an executive order on June 19 making it official. It was the third time that Trump authorized a delay. TikTok and Tariffs: Trump postpones TikTok deadline as talks continue to sell social media giant The popular social media app's parent company, ByteDance, now has until Sept. 17 to secure a deal that satisfies a legal requirement. Lawmakers ordered TikTok to divest from its Chinese ownership or face a ban in the United States over national security concerns. Former President Joe Biden signed the bipartisan legislation into law. And the Supreme Court held the ban. But since returning to office, Trump has directed the Department of Justice not to enforce it. His executive orders have kept the app from going dark. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration's lawyers "strongly believe" the president has the legal authority to delay enforcement. "The political reasoning for this, of course, is because the president made a promise to keep TikTok on," she said. "He also wants to protect American's data and privacy concerns on this app, and he believes we can do both things at the same time. So he's making an extension so we can get this deal done." Trump ordered Vice President JD Vance and his then-national security adviser, Mike Waltz, to help facilitate a deal that would prevent user data from being accessed by the Chinese government. U.S. officials said they were on the verge of reaching an agreement in April but hit stumbling blocks when Trump ratcheted up tariffs on China. Is TikTok getting banned? Trump says he'll 'probably' extend deadline again Trade relations between the two nations have improved since then but a TikTok deal remains on ice. It was not clear if TikTok came up when Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump spoke by phone for the first time on June 5. "We probably have to get China approval. I think we'll get it," Trump told reporters on June 17. "I think President Xi will ultimately approve it." TikTok has 135 million users in the United States, most of them young Americans, who Trump has said he does not believe are at risk from being spied on. "If China is going to get information about young kids, I don't know. To be honest with you, I think we have bigger problems than that," he told reporters. China denies that it interferes in the affairs of private businesses. Its embassy spokesman in Washington said in a June 19 statement that Trump has not changed its position on the United States ban. In response to a request, Liu Pengyu reiterated that the nation would "handle relevant matters in accordance with Chinese laws and regulations" and said the United States "should provide an open, fair, just, and non-discriminatory business environment." Contributing: Joey Garrison
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Why higher oil prices may not change US energy policy
As military actions between Iran and Israel continued, two tankers collided Tuesday, caught fire and spilled oil in the Gulf of Oman. The incident briefly sent shock waves through the oil market as investors contemplated a closure of the Strait of Hormuz. One estimate found that a closure in the crucial shipping route could result in oil prices soaring to $120 a barrel. So would higher oil prices push more people, or governments, to move away from fossil fuels? Short-term spikes in oil prices might translate into temporary changes in consumption patterns, analysts have said. But they are not likely to have a significant impact on long-term oil production or consumer habits. Oil shocks, often accompanied by increases in gasoline prices, have bedeviled presidents since the Nixon era. But while no one likes paying more for gasoline, big price spikes have not translated into sweeping, long-term changes to domestic energy policy in the United States. To understand why, Meg Jacobs, a historian who teaches at Princeton University and the author of 'Panic at the Pump: The Energy Crisis and the Transformation of American Politics in the 1970s,' pointed to two lessons from the energy crisis of the 1970s. Energy crises and policy change The first lesson from the energy crisis, Jacobs said, is that even though it worried voters, it didn't lead to the development of a more robust domestic energy policy in the United States. In the 1970s, after supply shocks led to high gas prices, long lines at the pump and even rationing in some states, many politicians agreed that the United States should reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Then-President Jimmy Carter flirted with fixes like supporting renewables as he encouraged consumers to conserve energy. But big promises to fix the energy crisis fell flat. 'The lesson of the 1970s was that if Watergate and Vietnam taught Americans that governments lie, then the failure to solve the energy crisis taught them that government was ineffective,' Jacobs said. Instead of reducing reliance on foreign oil by rethinking domestic energy policy, Jacobs said, the United States under President Ronald Reagan stepped up its military presence in the Middle East. Congress is currently debating the rollback of many of the renewable energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden's signature climate law. The fate of this policy may prove far more consequential for the energy transition than an oil supply disruption in the Middle East. Voters and higher prices The second lesson, Jacobs said, is that sacrifice is not popular. In 1979, Carter angered voters when he made a speech suggesting people should use less energy. He lost his bid for reelection. 'Americans would not tolerate increases at the pump,' Jacobs said. 'They were not willing to make short-term sacrifices for long-term gains.' Biden and President Donald Trump both came of age during the energy crisis, Jacobs pointed out. And both have prioritized low costs for consumers with their energy agendas. During his term, Biden decided against proposing a carbon tax in favor of the tax breaks featured in the IRA, and Trump promised to slash energy prices on the campaign trail. So what's the long-term prognosis for America's energy mix? As domestic policies come and go, the past decade or so has seen a crucial shift in energy economics. Even if clean energy subsidies go away, solar and wind have gotten so cheap that those industries are now here to stay, Jacobs said. And domestic politics aside, oil may be fading in importance, albeit slowly. A Tuesday report from the International Energy Agency found that despite geopolitical uncertainties, oil demand is projected to plateau by 2030. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
