By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a post from Governor Newsom’s press office labeling Stephen Miller a “fascist,” Republican Representative Derrick Francis Van Orden called for Newsom’s arrest, deeming the post “domestic terrorism” based on 18 U.S. Code § 2331. Van Orden’s critique cited the post’s alleged intent to influence government policy through intimidation. Ironically, the term “fascist” has been used by Miller himself to describe opponents and the Democratic party. Newsom’s office, however, has remained unyielding in its criticism.
Read the original article here
MAGA Lawmaker Calls for Newsom’s Arrest Over Miller Insult: This is the story.
It seems like the recent dust-up revolves around a MAGA lawmaker who’s calling for California Governor Gavin Newsom to be arrested. The alleged offense? Newsom’s office, in a tweet, called Stephen Miller, a prominent figure in conservative circles, a “fascist.” The core of the argument here appears to be that such a label, even if used rhetorically, constitutes some form of actionable offense, perhaps even domestic terrorism, warranting legal action. The whole thing feels a bit… dramatic.
The reactions, as one might expect, are pretty varied. Many people find the whole thing rather absurd. The sentiment seems to be, if calling someone a fascist is grounds for arrest, then a whole lot of people, including some prominent figures on the right, should be getting hauled in as well. There’s a definite sense that this is a case of selective outrage and hypocrisy. If Newsom is to be arrested for calling Miller a fascist, why not Trump and others for similar accusations?
The language used here is striking. There are multiple references to “fascists” and “Nazis,” terms that are being thrown around with some frequency. The general opinion seems to be that the label fits Miller. This use of the word “fascist” is viewed by many as not an insult, but rather an observation. It reflects the belief that Miller’s actions and rhetoric align with fascist ideologies. The reaction to Newsom’s statement is viewed as a sign of how thin-skinned this group can be, and also the irony of using such actions to defend the very ideologies that have been described.
There’s a significant level of skepticism about the sincerity of this particular call for arrest. The argument being made is that this whole situation highlights a double standard. Conservatives have a habit of dishing out insults and accusations, but they can’t handle it when the tables are turned. The implication is that this MAGA lawmaker is simply playing political games, attempting to weaponize the legal system for partisan gain.
One of the key themes emerging is the supposed fragility of the MAGA movement, which is characterized by its members as “crybabies” or “girly men”. This perception is clearly evident in the comments and criticisms directed towards the MAGA lawmaker. They are accused of being overly sensitive and prone to emotional outbursts. The general sentiment is, it’s “hypocritical” to act one way and then cry over words on a screen.
The accusation of hypocrisy seems to be the core of many of the negative reactions. The response is not only seen as an overreaction, but also a deliberate effort to stifle criticism. It is pointed out that figures like Miller himself have been known to level similar accusations at others, yet they seem to take exception when the same is done to them. The focus shifts from the merits of the original statement to the perceived hypocrisy of the reaction.
Overall, the general impression is that this is a tempest in a teapot. The call for Newsom’s arrest is seen as politically motivated, hypocritical, and ultimately absurd. It is not a serious legal argument, but more of a performative gesture intended to stir up controversy and rally the base. The whole incident does raise some interesting questions about the nature of political discourse, the use of inflammatory language, and the boundaries of free speech.