BY: Paul Crookston Follow
@P_Crookston

December 12, 2018 1:38 pm

A federal investigation into top circles of Tallahassee politics has led to the indictment and arrest of one of Florida’s most prominent Democrats.

Tallahassee City Commissioner and former Mayor Scott Maddox, who used to be the chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, was indicted on Tuesday by a federal grand jury on public corruption charges, the Tallahassee Democrat reports. Paige Carter-Smith, executive director of the Downtown Improvement Authority Executive, was also charged in the 44-count indictment as part of the City Hall probe, according to federal court documents.

It’s unclear whether the FBI’s probe into Tallahassee city politics is coming to a close or just getting started.

Maddox was arrested Wednesday morning by FBI agents and Carter-Smith was scheduled to surrender to the FBI the same morning, according to court documents. They are scheduled to first appear before a judge this afternoon.

Maddox denied the charges back in February, and Carter-Smith’s lawyer said she will be cleared.

With Maddox indicted, Republican Gov. Rick Scott, Florida’s junior senator-elect, could suspend him from office. If he did so, Tallahassee city commissioners could appoint someone to fill his place on their five-person commission, and if they don’t within 20 days, the governor would then have the option to do so.

This comes more than a year after the grand jury subpoenaed the city for Maddox’s communications with aides, including Carter-Smith.

The Democrat has reported extensively on the corruption probe’s look at Maddox’s alleged pay-to-play scheme, which involved a public relations firm he started and companies such as Uber Technologies:

In February, the Democrat obtained federal court documents showing Maddox and Carter-Smith were central figures in its public corruption probe. A search warrant affidavit for Maddox’s personal emails and texts said the two engaged in a pay-to-play scheme involving their firm, Governance, Inc., and city vendors. The affidavit was sealed by a federal magistrate judge but later inadvertently posted on a federal court website.

The FBI alleged that Maddox sold Governance, a firm he started in 1999 when he was mayor, to Carter-Smith sometime between 2010 and 2012. But he continued to secretly control the company and profit from it, the documents said. Over a roughly five-year span, Governance made nearly $400,000 in payments to Maddox or Maddox and his wife and nearly $200,000 more to his family members.

The affidavit said Maddox took official actions to benefit a “ride share delivery service” that appeared to be Uber Technologies but was identified only as “Company One.” It also referred to a “waste services provider” that appeared to be Waste Pro USA but was identified only as “Company Three.”

While Tallahassee’s city commission was revising regulations on vehicles for hire, Uber hired Carter-Smith to be on its lobbying and consulting team, although she never registered as a lobbyist. When an ordinance with provisions favorable to Uber came up later on, Maddox voted in favor of it.

The trash vendor Waste Pro paid Governance more than $170,000, according to court documents, and it is cooperating with investigators.

Maddox’s indictment is not a surprise to many following the corruption scandal. He has been photographed with undercover FBI agents and was even recorded telling one of them to pay $20,000 per month to Governance.

Birth control is an individual responsibility.

Via Washington Examiner:

Christian organizations do not need to comply with Obamacare’s birth control mandate, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge Philip Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ordered that the federal government cannot enforce the provision, which obligates employers to pay for health insurance for their workers that covers all forms of contraception without a copay.

Brimmer, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, determined that the rule violated rights established by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The mandate was challenged by six Christian organizations, including the Association of Christian Schools International, Samaritan Ministries International, Taylor University, Indiana Wesleyan University, Asbury Theological Seminary, and the Alliance Defending Freedom.

The birth control mandate was created as an outgrowth of Obamacare. The law was written to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to decide what type of preventive care health insurance plans should cover without a copay, and the Obama administration determined that all forms of birth control should be included.

The obligation previously had exemptions for houses of worship, but not for companies that had closely held religious beliefs. Those who didn’t comply would be fined, and after the Supreme Court asked the Obama administration to find a work-around, groups again challenged them in court.

The Trump administration didn’t fight the challenge to the mandate and also has loosened the birth control rule by allowing employers to opt out of the mandate if they have religious or moral objections. The change is set to take effect at the beginning of 2019.

Keep reading…

Police confiscated a man’s licensed pistol and shotgun after he was forced to defend himself against an attack from a pit bull.

The 25-year-old man from Massachusetts said he was attacked by his recently fostered pit bull while he, his girlfriend and the dog were lying in bed, according to The Boston Globe.

The man tried to move the dog, but it retaliated by biting him on the left arm. The man tried to release the dog’s grip, but it refused.

In order to end the attack, the man reached for his 9mm handgun and shot the dog.

“The single shot stopped the attack and the dog died shortly afterward,” police said in a statement.

TRENDING: Watch: Smug Student Compares Clarence Thomas to Hitler Then Interviewer Wipes Smile Off His Face

The man ended up in the hospital with what was described as “serious” injuries to his arms. Had the man not been armed, the dog could have done more damage and seriously harmed his girlfriend, who was also present.

It’s sad that the dog died, but a human’s life could have been lost instead.

“The man is fully licensed to have firearms in Massachusetts,” the police said.

Despite legally owning his firearms and saving his girlfriend from a potential attack, the man’s guns were taken by police.

The police confiscated the man’s handgun, his 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition “for safekeeping.”

Who or what are the police keeping safe by confiscating someone’s legally owned firearms?

Police often keep items for “safekeeping” if they are at risk of being stolen, but that doesn’t seem like the case here. The only possible explanation is that the police don’t want the man to use his own guns.

It’s not as if he is a threat to attack other dogs. The man defended himself and his girlfriend against a potentially lethal attack.

In fact, confiscating the man’s firearms makes him less safe and more vulnerable to threats.

RELATED: City Gives AR-15 Owners December Deadline To Submit to Rifle Count

The threat could be more than a dog next time. The man is now completely helpless against home intruders.

While police did not disclose the reason they confiscated the man’s firearms, it’s possible he violated one of the state’s anti-gun laws.

Massachusetts has a “safe storage” law, which requires gun owners to keep their firearms “secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device.”

Failure to comply with this law can be punishable by a fine of up to $7,500.

Hopefully, that’s not the case in this situation. Regardless, the man shouldn’t have lost his firearms.

Only in a backward liberal state like Massachusetts can someone lose their rights for defending themselves.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

ZIP |
December 12, 2018 2:30 pm

Members of the “Honduran Migrant Caravan” marched to the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana on Tuesday and delivered a letter directed to President Donald Trump, demanding entry into the United States or $50,000 each to return home. They also requested the removal of military installations in Honduras.

Approximately 200 members of the caravan departed El Barretal camp in southeast Tijuana to the offices of the National Institute of Migration (INM) and later the U.S. Consulate General to hand deliver a letter outlining demands. The demonstration aimed to accelerate the process for migrants to request asylum and work in the United States. Security for the effort was provided by federal, state and municipal police, according to local reporting.

At the consulate, the migrant caravan was stopped by a team of riot police and were told to select a group of spokesperson to deliver the letter. The marchers were later directed toward two buses to transport them back to El Barretal.

Local news outlets later received and printed a copy of the letter.

In sum, the letter requested passage into the U.S., noting they were fleeing poverty, insecurity, and oppression caused by the administration of Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez. They also decried economic, political, and military interference from the U.S. throughout Central America over the past century.

The letter states that if the U.S. wants migration to stop, it should remove its security and economic interests from the region, which includes 13 military installations. If entry is not granted, the migrants seek $50,000 USD each to return home. They also asked for the removal of the sitting Honduran president.

The letter is signed, “The Honduran Caravan Migrants,” and set a 72-hour time limit for a response.

Several demonstrators carried signs in English. Some read:

You got it wrong Trump, we asked for jobs you responded with weapons. If asking for work is troublesome than I’m totally confused.

Don’t close your door employers. One day you will need me then I will remember the rejection. Entrepreneurs don’t turn your back on us. You know we both are the backbone of society.

One march organizer, Alfonso Guerreo Ulloa, offered comment on the $50,000 figure.

“It may seem like a lot of money to you … But it is a small sum compared to everything the United States has stolen from Honduras,” according to a Fox News report.

The Fox report also notes that a second letter was marched to the consulate, specifically asking for an uptick in daily asylum claims processed from 50 to 300.

This article was updated to include additional content.

Robert Arce is a retired Phoenix Police detective with extensive experience working Mexican organized crime and street gangs. Arce has worked in the Balkans, Iraq, Haiti, and recently completed a three-year assignment in Monterrey, Mexico, working out of the Consulate for the United States Department of State, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Program, where he was the Regional Program Manager for Northeast Mexico (Coahuila, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Durango, San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas.) You can follow him on Twitter. He can be reached at robertrarce@gmail.com

When yet another Christian celebrity fails to give a straight answer on a hot-button moral issue, it reveals a deeper problem.

Back in September, an article in Rolling Stone announced, “A Christian Singer is Bigger than Drake and Arianna Grande this Week.” That singer is Lauren Daigle, the Grammy-nominated singer-songwriter whose brilliant voice, soulful style, and hope-filled lyrics has won fans well beyond the Contemporary Christian genre. She’s becoming a regular on talk shows and in national publications, and has officially earned the coveted status of “crossover artist” at just 27 years old.

But with broader appeal comes a challenge: maintaining one’s identity, not as a “Christian singer,” but as a Christian. Sadly, it’s a challenge many Christian celebrities have struggled to handle.

Last week during an interview with iHeart radio, Daigle was asked, given her recent appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres show, whether she believes homosexuality is a sin.

“I can’t honestly answer that,” Daigle replied. “I have too many people that I love, and they are homosexuals.”

She went on to explain that since she’s not God, she can’t say one way or another. Instead, people should just “read the Bible and find out” for themselves.

Now let me say from the beginning here I understand how hard this high-pressure situation can be.  For a young woman like Daigle with a skyrocketing career, calling homosexuality a sin in a public forum could mean closing a lot of doors and alienating a lot of fans. There’s a real cost that comes with taking a stand for the Christian view of sex and marriage. Deciding to pay that price in a split second with a microphone shoved in your face is something better-trained theologians and pastors have failed to do.

But this whole story reveals something else—the deep crisis of authority plaguing evangelicalism right now. First, we should be past the point of answering this question, because the Christian view of sex and marriage should be so clear and our commitment to it should be so well-known by now that there should be no longer any point in asking the question!

The reason it still comes up is that too many evangelicals, like mainline Protestant liberals before them, have sounded an uncertain note on this topic. I’m not just talking about those very few pastors and writers who’ve reinvented their faith to accommodate LGBT theology. I’m talking about the epidemic fear to even broach the topic in so many evangelical churches and ministries, and how we’ve avoided the topic especially with our young people, instead wrongly catechizing them to look to their emotions for truth instead.

Neither the Bible nor nearly two millennia of Christian teaching are at any level ambiguous about homosexual behavior. Numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments condemn it, along with any sexual behavior outside of God’s good design for marriage between a man and a woman. No one in Christian history ever doubted this until about five minutes ago. There is no room for disagreement on the point.

For Daigle or any other Christian for that matter to publicly say, “I don’t know whether homosexuality is a sin” is like saying “I don’t know whether stealing or worshipping false gods are sins.”

And that brings up a second angle on the church-wide authority problem we face. When theological training is de-prioritized and even avoided, then our celebrities become our experts. Yes, Daigle should know better. But we should know better than to hold celebrities up as theological authorities.

And finally, we need to ask ourselves: How would we respond in Lauren Daigle’s situation? You might think, well, I’m not a celebrity. But it’s not just celebrities that will be faced with this question in awkward situations.

What will you say when someone with the power to seriously damage your career asks you what you think about a culturally popular sin? For that matter, what will you say at Christmas dinner when that one relative—maybe a relative who identifies as gay—asks you the same question?

There are no easy answers in that moment. But that doesn’t mean there are no right answers.

John Stonestreet is President of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview and BreakPoint co-host.

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published by BreakPoint.

(CNSNews.com) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said Tuesday that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents used tear gas 126 times against illegal aliens since 2012, including 79 times between 2012 and 2016 under President Obama.

“On November 25, 1,000 migrants in the caravan ignored and overwhelmed Mexican law enforcement in an attempt to breach our border at port of entry San Diego. Agitators in the group rushed the port, hurtling rocks, bottles, debris, and other projectiles at your officers guarding a fence,” Grassley said while questioning CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan during a CBP oversight hearing.

“In response, the agents deployed non-lethal tear gas to control the agitators and closed the port of entry. As you know, Commissioner, this incident has been criticized and mischaracterized by the media and others, but the use of tear gas isn’t unprecedented,” Grassley said.

He noted that while the number of times CBP agents used firearms decreased since 2012 to a record law in 2018, the number of attacks on CBP agents has increased.

“CBP deployed tear gas a total of 126 times since 2012. That includes 79 times between 2012 and 2016 under President Obama. Nobody wants to see children and women hurt. Nobody wants to see migrants, travelers, or even our agents hurt,” the senator said.

“That’s why I’m happy to hear that your agency’s use of firearm decreased 69 percent since 2012 to a record low this year. Unfortunately, assaults against your personnel has increased 45 percent to 847 times in fiscal year 2017, so I want you to give me—give you an opportunity to explain to the committee and the American people what happened on November 25. So four parts, and I’m going to read all at once so you don’t have to answer short questions,” he said.

“Who initiated the conflict? Did your agency intentionally target women and children? What were the agents’ options, and did this incident deviate from standard protocol, and is there an investigation?” Grassley asked.

 

McAleenan explained what happened when Border Patrol agents confronted migrants who pushed past Mexican federal police on Nov. 25 and tried to breach the U.S. border.

“November 25th, we faced a dynamic and challenging situation in Tijuana – no question. We had over 1,000 migrants who were marching toward the Mexican side of the port of entry, El Chaparral, and pushed through the federal police, Mexican federal police lines there and then started really a chaotic attempt to enter the U.S. through both the port of entry on the Mexican side and then ultimately through different areas and weak points along the fence line in San Diego sector,” McAleenan said.

“This was a 2 ½-mile stretch of border that large groups attempted to penetrate at multiple points over the course of about a four or five-hour stretch. Importantly, due to the help of the Department of Defense, who put barriers in place in the southbound lanes very quickly after we saw this group forming and push past Mexican federal police, were able to shut down access through the southbound lanes in the United States, so they were deterred and turned around,” he said.

“Unfortunately, they then sought weak points along the fence line, and throughout the next five hours, we saw large groups entering the United States through weak points in the legacy fence that’s actually being replaced right now. Thanks to the investments in fiscal year 17. We’ve already built 33 out of those 40 miles. We’re putting the rest in place now. They were assaultive in their behavior. They threw rocks at agents.”

McAleenan said one Border Patrol agent has to have surgery for a dislocated kneecap as a result of rock attacks by migrants.

“We had an agent who now has to have surgery for a dislocated patella. He was hit by a rock during this event, and the agents were in challenging spaces. First the Tijuana River channel, where you’ve seen a lot of photography and video of over 500 migrants who were seeking to enter en masse through that area, and in the border zone, where we have a primary fence and a border fence where there’s very little room to maneuver or back up,” he said.

“So our agents were in a difficult situation. To answer your specific questions, who initiated this contact, it was initiated by some of the agitators and lead organizers of this group. Whether women and children were intentionally targeted with less lethal gas and pepper spray, absolutely not. The agitators who were throwing rocks were the ones targeted,” the commissioner said.

“Whether this was within protocols – yes, in fact in our use of force continuum, pepper spray and CS gas are authorized to address assaultive behavior or even act of resistance, which was certainly occurring in this case. And is there an investigative review? Yes,” he said.

McAleenan said CBP has a use of force review board and a review of the Border Patrol agents’ use of force “is being pursued under the auspices of San Diego sector, requested by Chief Rodney Scott, who oversees the agents involved with support of our National Office of Professional Responsibility and our Law Enforcement Safety and Compliance Division.”

The commissioner said “it’s remarkable” that Border Patrol agents “were able to resolve the situation without a serious injury to any of the migrants, without a serious breach of the border by a large group,” and it was “done very professionally.” He said CBP will “take any lessons learned from this review and apply them in the future.”

 

The first test of wills between leaders of split government arrives three weeks early, and it might produce nothing other than a government shutdown. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will meet with Donald Trump this morning to discuss the remainder of the 2019 budget, which still has not formally funded the departments of Homeland Security, State, and Justice. Trump has adamantly demanded $5 billion in funding for his border wall, and Pelosi and Schumer are just as determined not to give it to him:

Trump is scheduled to meet in the Oval Office on Tuesday morning with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer less than two weeks before a deadline to pass legislation to keep the Department of Homeland Security and several other agencies funded and open beyond 11:59 p.m. on Dec. 21. …

The high-stakes meeting was delayed one week as Washington paused for the funeral of former President George H.W. Bush. But those somber events only delayed the inevitable: a partisan clash and public relations fight that will pit Trump’s demand for $5 billion for a southern border barrier against the Democrats’ staunch opposition to one penny above a $1.6 billion border security proposal in a Senate-passed spending bill.

Schumer and Pelosi ramped up the rhetoric in a Monday statement, saying Trump “knows full well that his wall proposal does not have the votes to pass the House and Senate, and should not be an obstacle to a bipartisan agreement.”

Roll Call argues that Trump’s legal woes undermine his position, “complicating his talks” with the Democratic leaders. Why that should matter is not entirely clear. If anything, Trump’s more likely to stick to his guns on immigration policy and the wall to keep his base engaged; moderates aren’t going to flock to him under these circumstances if he backs down. Besides, Trump’s leverage in this case remains the same — the Senate and his own ability to veto a budget that doesn’t fund his priorities.

Trump raised the curtain on this morning’s meeting by declaring on Twitter that he’d get the wall built, with or without Pelosi. If Congress won’t provide specific funding for the bill, then Trump said he’d have the Pentagon do it:

…..I look forward to my meeting with Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi. In 2006, Democrats voted for a Wall, and they were right to do so. Today, they no longer want Border Security. They will fight it at all cost, and Nancy must get votes for Speaker. But the Wall will get built…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 11, 2018

….People do not yet realize how much of the Wall, including really effective renovation, has already been built. If the Democrats do not give us the votes to secure our Country, the Military will build the remaining sections of the Wall. They know how important it is!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 11, 2018

That might be one reason that Trump reversed himself on the military budget this week. Trump had complained before about spending at the Pentagon, but now the president has agreed to back Defense Secretary James Mattis on getting a budget boost:

President Donald Trump has told Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to submit a $750 billion budget proposal for fiscal 2020, in a reversal from his pledge to trim defense spending, two people familiar with the budget negotiations have told POLITICO.

The $750 billion figure emerged from a meeting Tuesday at the White House among Trump, Mattis and the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, both people said.

“It’s 750. Secretary Mattis secured that over lunch with the president,” an administration official said of the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a figure that has not yet been announced. Mattis was joined by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas). “That’s the top line.”

That would dwarf the $733 billion budget proposal Mattis and other top military leaders have been fighting to preserve and would represent a stunning about-face for a president who recently called the fiscal 2019 top line of $716 billion for defense spending “crazy.” In October, Trump said the defense figure for 2020 would be $700 billion, a roughly 5 percent cut in line with decreases planned for other agencies.

Hmm. That’s a $34 billion increase from FY2019, an increase of 4.3% in a single year. It’s also easy to fit a $25 billion wall in that increase and still have some left over for other military priorities. Could Trump try to shift funds from military spending on the basis of national security? If Congress doesn’t earmark all the funds for specific purposes — a practice that has gone out of style, thanks to congressional corruption around pork-barrel politics — then it’s arguably possible, although that would touch off a huge fight with the House.

Expect that topic to come up when Donald meets Nancy and Chuck this morning. The two Democrats can’t afford to give Trump a win today, and Trump can’t afford any more delays on his border wall. An end-around through the Pentagon might be the only resolution for the standoff … for Trump, anyway.