White House Staffer Accused of Taking Officer’s Gun, Firing It During Dispute

195100_5_A White House staffer has been placed on leave after she was accused of taking the gun of an off-duty U.S. Capitol Police officer and firing it at him during a domestic dispute.

Barvetta Singletary, 37, has been charged with first-degree assault, second-degree assault and reckless endangerment in connection with the incident Friday, Prince George’s County police said Monday.

The incident began Friday morning at Singletary’s home in Upper Marlboro, Md., after she and the officer argued, according to police charging documents. Singletary asked the officer about another woman he was dating and left her house to search his Cadillac Escalade for his cellphones, the documents state.

When she found the officer’s phones, she also retrieved his service weapon in his bag and demanded that he give her the passwords to his phones, charging documents state . . .

“We are aware of the matter and have temporarily placed the employee in question on unpaid leave and revoked her access to the complex until we have more information,” a White House spokesman said in a statement. “We will take additional actions as needed.” (Read more from “White House Staffer Accused of Taking Officer’s Gun, Firing It During Dispute” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Levin: Congress Has Tools to Save Country’s Future, but They Won’t [+video]

downloadNationally syndicated radio show host Mark Levin stated that Congress has “tools in the Constitution they can use to save the future – and arrogantly and moronically, they won’t.”

“It’s getting very, very dangerous on America’s streets because politicians are seeking political advantage,” Levin added during his Thursday broadcast . . .

“This nation is careening out of control. We have over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. We’ve racked up $8-and-a-half trillion of fiscal operating losses. We can’t even choose our own health care provider and our own health care policy anymore.

“Our borders are being swarmed and overwhelmed with people from all over the world. We don’t know who’s coming here. It’s getting very, very dangerous on America’s streets because politicians are seeking political advantage.

“We have enemies on the move, enemies on the rise and we are gutting the United States military. And our Constitution is in tatters. (Read more from “Levin: Congress Has Tools to Save Country’s Future, but They Won’t” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

State of Emergency Declared in Ferguson After Police Shoot and Critically Injure Man During Protests [+video]

2048By Wesley Lowery, William Wan and Mark Berman. A man who was shot and critically injured by police here after authorities said he opened fire at officers was in critical condition Monday, his father said, as questions remained about what sparked the gunfire amid protests marking the first anniversary of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

The late-night shooting was a violent coda to a mostly peaceful day of protests and vigils commemorating a year since Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, was shot and killed by a white Ferguson officer, an event that thrust this small suburb of St. Louis into the center of a national conversation on how police officers use lethal force toward minorities.

It heightened fears about what the latest bloodshed could do to a tense community that has repeatedly been unsettled by unrest over the last year. Activists had planned a day of civil disobedience on Monday, and dozens of people were arrested in St. Louis on Monday.

On Monday afternoon, the St. Louis County executive declared a state of emergency in response to what he called “the potential for harm to persons and property” in the area.

“The recent acts of violence will not be tolerated in a community that has worked so tirelessly over the last year to rebuild and become stronger,” Steve Stenger, the county executive, said in a statement. “The time and investment in Ferguson and Dellwood will not be destroyed by a few that wish to violate the rights of others.” (Read more from “State of Emergency Declared in Ferguson After Police Shoot and Critically Injure Man During Protests” HERE)

____________________________________________________

Man Shot by Police in Ferguson During Protests

By Tom Cleary. An 18-year-old man was shot by police in Ferguson, Missouri, during protests on the one-year anniversary of Michael Brown’s death in the same St. Louis-area city.

The victim was shot by four plainclothes detectives, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said. He is in surgery at a local hospital. Police said the victim fired at the officers during the incident and they returned fire.

The victim’s father identified him as Tyrone Harris Jr., a recent Normandy High School graduate who was “real close” with Brown, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

Brown, 18, was fatally shot by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014, who was never charged in the death . . .

Plainclothes detectives were in the area tracking a person they believed to be armed with a gun. The officers said the victim shot at police officers and returned fire from inside a van. The victim then ran and turned back, as the detectives exited their vehicle and shots were fired again. Four officers, who were wearing vests identifying them as police, fired at the victim again. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘One Person, One Vote’ Principle on Line at the Supreme Court

election_mg_3455Hispanic “voting rights” advocates are nervous over the recent decision by the Supreme Court to hear Evenwel v. Abbott, the “biggest voting law case in 60 years” according to experts. Plaintiffs in the case are asking the court to consider a fundamental question about our representative democracy: does drawing legislative districts around “residents” instead of eligible voters give too much weight to voters in immigrant-heavy districts and thus violate the Constitution’s “one-person, one-vote” principle? As the two plaintiffs show in court filings, their respective senate districts in Texas have almost twice the amount of eligible voters than do other more Hispanic urban districts. If the voter population of Texas’s districts was equalized, it would have huge implications on how political power’s distributed not only in that state, but likely elsewhere.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in support of the plaintiffs, the Immigration Reform Law Institute argues that, in the case of illegal aliens at least, it was never intended by the framers to include them in the apportionment base from which we distribute our representatives. Counting them, we argue, is unconstitutional.

There was concern about the distortive effects of total population-based apportionment when the Reconstruction Congress debated the changes to the Census Clause later enshrined in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator John Sherman of Ohio, for instance, could not see why a state that has “a very large element of unnaturalized foreigners” should be given political power at the expense of other states. For Sherman, the correct proposition was the one that “puts a citizen in one State on a footing of precise equality with a citizen in every other State.” Ultimately, however, it was deemed that a person’s alienage was not to prevent them from being included in the decennial census.

As for illegal immigrants, however, historical evidence shows granting them representation and apportionment “rights” was never contemplated by drafters of either the Census Clause or the Apportionment Amendment. Legal historian and former analyst with the Immigration Reform Law Institute, Patrick J. Charles, has written extensively about the topic with particular focus on the so-called “doctrine of allegiance.” Embodied in Congress’s plenary power over naturalization, the doctrine sets out that an alien must submit to the nation’s laws and declare his or her intention to lawfully settle in order to be subject to those laws. According to Charles, “when aliens only partially submit to the laws of their host nation they violate the first rule of the law of nations concerning emigration—the doctrine of allegiance and submission of the government.” The drafters understood that political privileges, such as apportionment and representation, were “subject to allegiance and subjecting one’s self fully to the laws” and that without such submission that person would still be subject to the laws of their foreign jurisdiction.

During the Fourteenth Amendment debates, Senator Luke Poland of Vermont stated that legal aliens should be apportioned observing that they are “subject to [the State’s] laws….They must all share in its burdens, and they are all interested in its legislation and government.” This does not apply to illegal aliens. As Charles argues it is “outside the bounds of constitutional logic for a class of foreigners to be entitled to the full protection of the Constitution, especially the political privilege of apportionment, if they do not subject themselves fully to the laws” (emphasis added). Illegal aliens, by their very existence in the United States, are not subjecting themselves “fully to the laws.” Their very presence flouts the law. Just one example is the failure to register their presence with immigration authorities once they have been in the country for 30 days or longer. (Read more from “‘One Person, One Vote’ Principle on Line at the Supreme Court” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Just Announced His Plan for ISIS – and It Includes Something Highly Controversial

shutterstock_196597025-913x512Continuing his trademark style of delivering bold and controversial answers to pesky problems, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently revealed a central component of his plan for battling Islamic extremism in the Middle East.

He described terrorist group ISIS as a well-funded organization reliant on oil for its revenue. It is on this front, he said during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, that he would attack the organization.

“Every place where they have oil,” he said, “I would knock the hell out of them.”

His plan would call for the deployment of ground troops in the region, he acknowledged.

“I would knock out the source of their wealth, which is oil,” he said. “And in order to do that, you would have to put boots on the ground. I would knock the hell out of them, but I’d put a ring around it and I’d take the oil for our country.”

Reaction to his proposal was mixed, with some citing a previous campaign promise for which Trump received pointed criticism. (Read more from “Trump Just Announced His Plan for ISIS – and It Includes Something Highly Controversial” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Group Backing Clinton Gets $1M From Untraceable Donors

Hillary Rodham ClintonBy Julie Bykowicz. Hillary Rodham Clinton told a cheering crowd at her largest rally so far that “the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money” must be stopped. Two weeks later, the main super PAC backing her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination accepted a $1 million contribution that cannot be traced.

The seven-figure donation, made June 29 to the pro-Clinton Priorities USA Action, came from another super political action committee, called Fair Share Action. Its two lone contributors are Fair Share Inc. and Environment America Inc., according to records filed with Federal Election Commission.

Those two groups are nonprofits that are not legally required to reveal information about their donors. Such contributions are sometimes called “dark money” by advocates for stricter campaign finance rules.

“This appears to be an out-and-out laundering operation designed to keep secret from the public the original source of the funds given to the super PAC, which is required to disclose its contributors,” said Fred Wertheimer, director of one such group, the Washington-based Democracy 21.

Wertheimer urged Priorities to return the money and said that Clinton should demand that the super PAC “publicly disclose all of the original sources of money” of any contribution it receives. (Read more from “Group Backing Clinton Gets $1M From Untraceable Donors” HERE)

___________________________________________________________

Hillary Clinton Hits N.H. As Grumbles Grow

By Hillary Chabot. Hillary Clinton will be greeted by grumpy Granite State Democrats today demanding additional debates beyond the limited six sanctioned showdowns recently released by the Democratic National Committee — and even top DNC officials agree.

A group of high-ranking New Hampshire Democrats wrote an open letter yesterday demanding more debates, and a supporter of front-runner Hillary Clinton and former NHDP chair Kathy Sullivan concurred.

“Six may be too few,” Sullivan told the Herald. “Personally I’d like to have a debate after Iowa and before the New Hampshire primary in New Hampshire. That’s not on the schedule. I’m a member of the DNC, so they’ll probably get upset with me for saying that, but that’s how I feel.”

The DNC confirmed a six-debate schedule last week that allows all five Democratic candidates to face off in key states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina starting on Oct. 13. But Gov. Martin O’Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders immediately took issue with the low number of debates — and other top Dems soon followed suit.

“It’s crazy. We need some action on our side. Six debates aren’t enough,” said Phil Johnston, former Massachusetts Democratic Party chairman, who pointed to the 24 million audience members who tuned in to the Republican debate last week. “That’s all you need to know.” (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Poll: Donald Trump Still in the Lead After Debates

Donald-Trump-in-his-YouTu-012By Shawna Thomas and John Lapinski. If Donald Trump’s comments about Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly are hurting his standing in the Republican primary, it’s not showing in the numbers.

According to the latest NBC News Online Poll conducted by SurveyMonkey, Trump is at the top of the list of GOP candidates that Republican primary voters would cast a ballot for if the primary were being held right now.

The overnight poll was conducted for 24 hours from Friday evening into Saturday. During that period, Donald Trump stayed in the headlines due to his negative comments about Kelly and was dis-invited from a major conservative gathering in Atlanta.

None of that stopped Trump from coming in at the top of the poll with 23 percent. Sen. Ted Cruz was next on the list with 13 percent.

During the Fox News debate Thursday evening, Trump was the only Republican candidate to say he would not rule out a run as an independent candidate. According to this poll, that’s just fine with over half of his supporters. 54% of Trump supporters said they would vote for him for president, even if he didn’t win the GOP nomination. About one in five Trump supporters said they would switch and support the eventual Republican candidate. (Read more from “Poll: Donald Trump Still in the Lead After Debates” HERE)

__________________________________________________________

GOP Leaders Say Erratic Attacks Hurt Trump, but He Vows to Fight and Win

By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa. Republican leaders who have watched Donald Trump’s summer surge with alarm now believe that his presidential candidacy has been contained and may begin to collapse because of his repeated attacks on a Fox News Channel star and his refusal to pledge his loyalty to the eventual GOP nominee.

Fearful that the billionaire’s inflammatory rhetoric has inflicted serious damage to the GOP brand, party leaders hope to pivot away from the Trump sideshow and toward a more serious discussion among a deep field of governors, senators and other candidates.

They acknowledge that Trump’s unique megaphone and the passion of his supporters make any calculation about his candidacy risky. After all, he has been presumed dead before: Three weeks ago, he prompted establishment outrage by belittling the Vietnam war service of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), only to prove, by climbing higher in the polls, that the laws of political gravity did not apply to him.

Still, Trump’s erratic performance during and after the first Republican presidential debate last week sparked a backlash throughout the party Saturday and a reassessment of his front-running bid. The final straw for many was Trump’s comment on CNN late Friday that Fox moderator Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), a fellow candidate, said Trump was jeopardizing the GOP’s chances of winning back the White House and urged party leaders to stop “tiptoeing” around him. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Darren Wilson Just Broke His Silence on Ferguson, Drops This Truth Bomb

darren-913x512Former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson broke his silence as the one year anniversary of the shooting death of Michael Brown approaches.

Wilson, who now lives more-or-less in exile in a St. Louis suburb, sat down for a lengthy interview with New Yorker Magazine and discussed issues such as race relations and the fallout in his life from that fateful day, August 9, 2014 . . .

The former Ferguson officer told The New Yorker that he had not read the Justice Department’s report on racism in Ferguson. “I don’t have any desire,” he said. “I’m not going to keep living in the past about what Ferguson did. It’s out of my control” . . .

The New Yorker’s Jack Halpern reports:

Later that night (after the shooting)…they turned on the television and watched live coverage of unrest in Ferguson. Barb recalled, “We stayed up all night watching, like, ‘Oh, my God—what’s going on? What are they doing?’ Barb’s younger son, who was then six, asked why there were images on television of Ferguson burning. Wilson told me, “I said, ‘Well, I had to shoot somebody.’ And he goes, ‘Well, why did you shoot him? Was he a bad guy?’ I said, ‘Yeah, he was a bad guy…’”

Halpern asked Wilson if he “thought Brown was truly a ‘bad guy,’ or just a kid who had got himself into a bad situation. ‘I only knew him for those forty-five seconds in which he was trying to kill me, so I don’t know,’ Wilson said.” (Read more from “Darren Wilson Just Broke His Silence on Ferguson, Drops This Truth Bomb” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

EPA Crew Turns River Orange [+video]

CL5CtViWoAAQHYKA federal cleanup crew accidentally caused a big, and potentially hazardous, mess in Colorado, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

An estimated 1 million gallons of wastewater spilled out of an abandoned mine area in the southern part of the state on Wednesday, turning the Animas River orange and prompting the EPA to tell locals to avoid it . . .

According to the EPA, the spill occurred when one of its teams was using heavy equipment to enter the Gold King Mine, a suspended mine near Durango. Instead of entering the mine and beginning the process of pumping and treating the contaminated water inside as planned, the team accidentally caused it to flow into the nearby Animas River. Before the spill, water carrying “metals pollution” was flowing into a holding area outside the mine.

The EPA began testing the Animas River for hazardous materials on Thursday. EPA spokesperson Lisa McClain-Vanderpool said the agency hoped to have preliminary information available throughout Friday and Saturday. Until then, it is not known what the orange, acidic mess might mean for water users and the river’s ecosystem.

Officials said they believe the spill carried heavy metals, mainly iron, zinc and copper, from the mine into a creek that feeds into the Animas River. From there, the orange water plugged steadily along through the small stretch of winding river in southern Colorado and across the state border to New Mexico where the Animas meets the San Juan River. The EPA said it will continue to sample water downstream from the mine until the contamination has passed and it determines there are “no additional concerns for aquatic life or water users.” When asked if the spill could affect drinking water, the EPA spokesperson said she did not yet know. (Read more from “EPA Crew Turns River Orange” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

According to Poll, Here’s the Amount of People Who Support Religious Liberty

protect relgious freedom signWhen the edict to redefine the institution of marriage and the constitution itself came down from the high benches of the Supreme Court, the response from the GOP establishment was as unequivocal as it was silent. They had no intention of ever fighting for marriage or even religious liberty. The issue was settled. McConnell said that the question of religious liberty must be dealt with in the courts. Now time to move onto Obamatrade and corporate welfare and avoid these thorny “social issues” like the plague.

However, a new poll conducted by Pat Caddell reveals that the public overwhelmingly sides with the principles of religious liberty, especially as it relates to the specific challenges with which Americans of faith are now confronted. “When asked which was more important, by a four to one ratio, voters said protecting religious liberty (31 percent) over protecting gay and lesbian rights (8 percent),” wrote Caddell in a separate memo distilling the results of the poll.

page5 religious freedom poll

Most notably, 82% of the 800 voters sampled believe that individuals should not be coerced to service gay weddings in contravention to their religious beliefs.

page34 religious freedom poll

Notice what a difference an issue poll makes when the question accurately reflects the reality at hand. This is a very fair question and is not designed to net a more “conservative” result.

“Suppose a Christian wedding photographer has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same sex marriage. If a same-sex couple wanted to hire that photographer for their wedding ceremony, should the photographer have the right to say no?”

Clearly, were Republicans to simply frame the messaging on this issue in the context of this question, which is incidentally the reality businesses of faith are confronted with, they would win over 82% of the electorate.

But this is not an outlier poll. Even the AP poll from last month, which asked the question of coercion in a way that made the business owners seem more filled with hostility, showed that 59% would uphold their right to deny service.

Another poll from last month reveals that not all is well on the fundamental transformational home front. When surveyed by the Washington Post whether they are comfortable with the direction of the country on social issues, 64% of voters said they were uncomfortable while only 34% felt comfortable with the recent societal changes. The polarization aspect is even more striking because 45% feel “strongly uncomfortable” while only 14% feel “strongly comfortable” with the changes. Sixty-eight percent of Independents and even 43% of Democrats say they are uncomfortable with the societal transformations.

washington post poll

It’s abundantly clear that the GOP establishment’s political barometer is completely broken. Rather than running away from our founding principles on religious liberty, the GOP candidates would be wise to make religious liberty a centerpiece of their campaigns. A sane Republican Party would introduce civil-rights-style legislation blocking states from coercing individuals to service acts that violate their religious beliefs. Sadly, Republicans have shown since the midterm elections that they are incapable of taking “yes” for an answer from the American people. (Re-posted with permission, “According to Poll, Here’s the Amount of People Who Support Religious Liberty”, originally appeared HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.