The website Public Intelligence reported that “an intelligence bulletin issued by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division in late May warns that so-called ‘militia extremists’ are likely to begin targeting Muslim institutions, including mosques and other religious facilities.”
It named me, among others, among those who incite these violent “militia extremists.”
Meanwhile, as the FBI libels me as someone who inspires violence, I am getting death threats every day. Every day now.
The FBI’s report on these right-wing militias is focusing upon an entirely trumped-up problem in service of a frankly sinister agenda. There is no significant right-wing militia threat, and neither I nor any of the others mentioned are telling anyone to commit any acts of violence. This is just the latest attempt to demonize and marginalize those who dare to speak the truth about jihad violence, and to further the administration’s dangerous fantasies about Islam being a religion of peace that is lied about by hatemongers, rather than a religion of violence that is inciting violence and hatred worldwide.
I have never supported, called for or advocated for violence — ever. None of my readers, members of my organizations, or supporters has ever hurt anyone. We work to stop the violence and carnage, and now the FBI is targeting those who oppose jihad terror?
Ever since the Islamic State (ISIS) issued its fatwa calling for me to be murdered, I have to live under constant guard — and instead of issuing a report talking about that and strategizing about how to protect me and other Americans who have dared to stand up to the jihadis and defend our freedoms, this is what the FBI is doing in the wake of the Garland, Texas jihad attack on our free speech event? They tried to kill us and now I am the threat? They are slaughtering Americans and the FBI is coming after… the Americans they want to slaughter?
Maybe if these traitors had focused on the real enemy, they wouldn’t have dropped the ball on Chattanooga. Some idiots protest outside a mosque in Arizona and now our law enforcement agencies step and fetchit for the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)?
WND notes that “the bulletin cites an unidentified source with ‘good access’ who allegedly reported to the FBI in September 2014 that ‘militia extremists in Mississippi discussed kidnapping and beheading a Muslim and posting video of the attack to the Internet.’”
Who is the “unidentified source”? Nihad Awad? Beheading a Muslim — when did that EVER happen? Jihadists behead. Infidels don’t.
If they’re worried about beheading threats, this is what they should be investigating – some of the recent threats I have received from a devout Muslima on Twitter.
“The filthy Kafira Pig Faced Pamela Gellar… Hey Pamela, hope your face hits the floor first when you lose your head…She would be better off without her head… hope your face is disfigured, but this has already happened.”
And CNN reported last week that “a group calling itself the Islamic State Hacking Division this week posted online a purported list of names and contacts for Americans it refers to as ‘targets,’ according to officials. Though the legitimacy of the list is questionable, and much of the information it contains is outdated, the message claims to provide the phone numbers, locations, and ‘passwords’ for 1,400 American government and military personnel as well as purported credit card numbers, and excerpts of some Facebook chats.”
And the FBI is worried about violence that I supposedly incite? All this is the fruit of President Obama’s anti-American jihad. Americans are not safe in our own homeland, and those who should be protecting us are targeting the victims. In threatening to murder those 1,400 Americans, the Islamic State jihadis wrote that they were “continuing that message: You don’t have to come to Syria and Iraq, you can stay where you are, do something where you are.”
They published these lists in order to try to spark Muslim attacks in the United States such as the ones in Garland, Texas, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, in recent months. Their default response for all things un-Islamic is literally chopping heads off or committing mass murder. In this is the root of their supremacism. And we are told we must respect this culture of death and murder.
This ideology turns men into monsters. Anti-real. Blind. Evil.
It should be given no quarter. It is anti-human. Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it — the media, academia, the Obama administration should withdraw their sanction. The FBI should be ashamed of itself for targeting the victims instead of focusing on the real threat.
Paul Joseph Watson
A 9-year-old girl was shot dead as she did her homework in Ferguson on Tuesday night, but the same community that rioted in response to Michael Brown’s death was nowhere to be seen.
The difference? Jamyla Bolden was killed in a drive-by shooting and not by a white police officer.
“The father of Jamyla Bolden said the girl was in her bed doing homework inside a home in the 9200 block of Ellison when she was shot around 9:30 Tuesday night. Her mother was also shot in the leg,” reports KMOV 4.
Pastor Willis Johnson commented on the tragedy by emphasizing that all lives matter.
“There needs to be a reevaluation of human life: [whether] black, white, young, seasoned, whether in Ferguson, or areas considered affluent,” said Johnson. “This has to stop. This epidemic of lost life under false pretense and of no real significant reason has to change.”
While scores of people in St. Louis rioted and burned cars and buildings last night in response to the death of a man who police say pointed a gun at them during the serving of a warrant, there has been zero interest from demonstrators in the circumstances that led to Bolden’s killing.
Earlier this month, violent unrest flared in Ferguson on the anniversary of the death of Michael Brown, who was killed by Officer Darren Wilson after assaulting a store clerk, attempting to grab Wilson’s gun and charging at him.
The Black Lives Matter movement will continue to have little legitimacy until it actually addresses the primary threat to black lives – violent black criminals.
This hasn’t happened because BLM is a George Soros-funded astroturf outfit that is being used to generate nationwide racial division.
Around 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks, despite the fact that they only make up 13% of the population.
Jamyla Bolden’s tragic death again illustrates how black lives don’t matter if the killer is not a white police officer and the victim is not a gun-toting criminal.
Patrick J. Buchanan
“Trump’s immigration proposals are as dangerous as they are stunning,” railed amnesty activist Frank Sharry.
“Trump … promises to rescind protections for Dreamers and deport them. He wants to redefine the constitutional definition of U.S. citizenship as codified by the 14th Amendment. He plans to impose a moratorium on legal immigration.”
While Sharry is a bit hysterical, he is not entirely wrong.
For the six-page policy paper, to secure America’s border and send back aliens here illegally, released by Trump last weekend, is the toughest, most comprehensive, stunning immigration proposal of the election cycle.
The Trump folks were aided by people around Sen. Jeff Sessions who says Trump’s plan “reestablishes the principle that America’s immigration laws should serve the interests of its own citizens.”
The issue is joined, the battle lines are drawn, and the GOP will debate and may decide which way America shall go. And the basic issues — how to secure our borders, whether to repatriate the millions here illegally, whether to declare a moratorium on immigration into the USA — are part of a greater question.
Will the West endure, or disappear by the century’s end as another lost civilization? Mass immigration, if it continues, will be more decisive in deciding the fate of the West than Islamist terrorism. For the world is invading the West.
A wild exaggeration? Consider.
Monday’s Washington Post had a front-page story on an “escalating rash of violent attacks against refugees,” in Germany, including arson attacks on refugee centers and physical assaults.
Burled in the story was an astonishing statistic. Germany, which took in 174,000 asylum seekers last year, is on schedule to take in 500,000 this year. Yet Germany is smaller than Montana.
How long can a geographically limited and crowded German nation, already experiencing ugly racial conflict, take in half a million Third World people every year without tearing itself apart, and changing the character of the nation forever?
Do we think the riots and racial wars will stop if more come?
And these refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are not going to stop coming to Europe. For they are being driven across the Med by wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, by the horrific conditions in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan, by the Islamist terrorism of the Mideast and the abject poverty of the sub-Sahara.
According to the U.N., Africa had 1.1 billion people by 2013, will double that to 2.4 billion by 2050, and double that to 4.2 billion by 2100.
How many of these billions dream of coming to Europe? When and why will they stop coming? How many can Europe absorb without going bankrupt and changing the continent forever?
Does Europe have the toughness to seal its borders and send back the intruders? Or is Europe so morally paralyzed it has become what Jean Raspail mocked in “The Camp of the Saints”?
The blazing issue in Britain and France is the thousands of Arab and African asylum seekers clustered about Calais to traverse the Eurotunnel to Dover. The Brits are on fire. Millions want out of the EU. They want to remain who they are.
Each week we read of boats sinking in the Med with hundreds of refugees drowning. Yet many, many more make it to the Greek and Italian islands, and thence north to Germany and Scandinavia and the welfare states of Western Europe. Once they step onto EU soil, they are in.
This unending invasion has called into existence anti-immigrant and anti-EU parties in almost every country in Europe. Few of these parties existed at the turn of the century. How does this all end?
“Humankind cannot bear very much reality,” wrote T. S. Eliot.
Is the West still blind to reality, to the inevitable future that awaits if the West does not secure its frontiers and close its borders to mass immigration?
Peoples of European descent, everywhere they live, have birth rates below replacement levels. Yet, most live in the world’s most desirable neighborhoods.
The great and growing populations of mankind are in the Third World. Countless millions are determined to come to the West, legally if they can, illegally if they must. And the more who succeed, the more who come.
Either Western nations take tough measures to secure their borders, or the Western nations will be swamped. The character of their countries will be altered forever, and smaller countries will become unrecognizable. And as this is happening, ethnic and racial clashes will become more common, as they are now becoming across Europe.
“The principle that America’s immigration laws should serve the interests of its own citizens” is paramount, said Sen. Sessions.
Sessions is right. America is our home. We decide who comes in and who does not, how large the American family becomes, whom we adopt and whence they come. It has become the issue of 2016.
Indeed, it is the issue of the 21st century.
Watchdogs assigned to root out fraud and corruption inside federal government agencies encounter so many barriers during their investigations that they’re calling on Congress to pass legislation that will guarantee the access they’re already supposed to have.
The cry comes on the heels of a new Justice Department restriction on information that its inspector general (IG) can access during agency probes. Remember that President Obama promised to run the most transparent administration in history yet the Department of Justice (DOJ), an extension of the executive office, is limiting what its watchdog can see during what’s supposed to be an independent investigation. This goes contrary to a 1978 law requiring that inspectors general act autonomously when they conduct probes of the federal agencies they’re assigned to keep in check.
This is hardly the case. In fact, Judicial Watch has reported for years about the obstacles that inspectors general have faced as they do their job to crack down on waste, fraud and corruption in government. There are 73 IGs and, although they report to Congress, each is appointed by the president. For years current and former employees at IG offices have alleged that the watchdogs work too closely with the leaders of the agencies they investigate and that many have succumbed to political pressure, in both Republican and Democrat administrations.
In fact, a few years ago a number of IGs came under fire and faced retaliation and scrutiny after exposing wrongdoing at the agencies they were charged with investigating. This led Congress to contemplate legislation to protect the watchdogs by, among other things, requiring the president to notify Congress 30 days before firing an inspector general to guard against terminations for political reasons. As is often the case in Washington, no action was taken to solve the matter so the problem persists.
Now IGs are calling on begging Congress to do its job and help. In a letter to lawmakers this month, the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, which represents the nation’s IGs, asks that legislation be passed to guarantee their independence when conducting probes at federal agencies. “Without timely and unfettered access to all necessary information, Inspectors General cannot ensure that all government programs and operations are subject to exacting and independent scrutiny,” the letter states. “Refusing, restricting, or delaying an Inspector General’s independent access may lead to incomplete, inaccurate, or significantly delayed findings and recommendations, which in turn may prevent the agency from promptly correcting serious problems and pursuing recoveries that benefit taxpayers, and deprive Congress of timely information regarding the agency’s activities. It also may impede or otherwise inhibit investigations and prosecutions related to agency programs and operations.”
The move comes after the DOJ’s legal counsel issued a ruling creating new limits on information that its watchdog can access during investigations of the agency, which has been embroiled in a number of scandals during the Obama administration. Under the new guidelines the DOJ’s IG can only obtain what may be considered “sensitive” information if DOJ officials in charge of the cases being probed give permission. In some instances permission could be granted but in others the information could be completely kept from the IG under the new rules, which were initially proposed by Obama’s first Attorney General, Eric Holder.
The Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency refers to the DOJ’s new policy in its letter to Congress, writing that it “sharply curtails the authority of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice (DOJ-IG) to independently access all records necessary to carry out its oversight responsibilities.” Furthermore, the IGs point out, it “represents a serious threat to the independent authority of not only the DOJ-IG but to all Inspectors General.” These watchdogs must have access, without delay, to all information and data in an agency’s possession that is deemed necessary to conduct oversight functions, the letter states.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen will spare Department of Homeland Security Sec. Jeh Johnson from appearing before his court later this month to answer for the Obama administration’s illegal issuance of amnesty documents.
According to the Washington Times, in a court filling Tuesday, Hanen — who had threatened to require the agency chief to appear and explain the violations earlier — excused Johnson from testifying but said the administration still must answer for their errors at a hearing on August 19.
At issue is the Obama administration’s violation of Hanen’s February injunction, which stopped President Obama’s executive amnesty programs from taking effect — namely Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Hanen’s ruling was made in the matter of 26 states’ challenge of Obama’s November 20 executive amnesty.
While the order was supposed to halt all implementation, the administration — which had already started issuing expanded DACA three-year work permits instead of the acceptable two-year permits in advance of its official start date— continued to issue three-year permits in violation of the injunction.
According to USCIS, more than 2,100 three-year permits were issued post-injunction and another 500 were issued before the injunction but, due to mail issues, were re-sent after the injunction. On July 7, Hanen pressed the Obama administration to recoup the illegal three-year permits and come in compliance with the order.
The administration embarked on an aggressive effort to replace the three-year permits with two-year ones and in the process also discovered another 50 three-year permits issued post-injunction. The administration said it had either recouped, accounted for or terminated the initial 2,600 three-year permits.
“The court does not consider mere substantial compliance, after an order has been in place for six months, to be acceptable and neither should counsel,” the Times quoted Hanen’s Tuesday filing.
Although the administration has taken action on the illegally issued permits, a source of consternation remains the more than 108,000 three-year permits that were issued in advance of expanded DACA’s official start date. According to the Times, in his filing Tuesday, Hanen noted that he “remains concerned” about the outstanding three-year permits.
Illegal immigrants are suing the U.S. government for what they say was psychological and physical harm due to their detention, according to an Associated Press report.
The five illegal immigrants, all hailing from Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, are seeking millions of dollars in damages and claim they received poor medical care and suffered psychologically from being detained.
Andrew Free, the immigration lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told the AP that the government’s use of family detention violates their rights and that the government fails to provide the “standard of care that they owe to these detainees.”
“We expect this will be the first in a large set of filings on the mistreatment of these women and children on behalf of the government,” Free told the AP.
While Immigration and Customs Enforcement — an agency named in the suit that oversees detention centers — would not comment on pending litigation, spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told the AP that the detention centers are an “open environment” that provide access to play areas, educational services, medical care, and legal help.
She noted that such facilities are “an effective and humane alternative for maintaining family unity as families go through immigration proceedings or await return to their home countries.”
To be sure, more than 84 percent of family units released on alternative to detention have absconded, simply skipping their immigration hearings.
According to News Radio 1200 WOAI, the illegal immigrants are seeking $10 million in damages.
The suit follows a recent federal judge’s ruling ordering the release of currently detained illegal immigrant family units and calls from Democratic lawmakers to end the practice of family detention. Last week the Obama administration argued against the judge’s ruling pointing out that simply releasing new illegal immigrants into the interior could inspire more illegal immigration.
Andrew P. Napolitano
The dust-up between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul over presidential fidelity to the Constitution — particularly the Fourth Amendment — was the most illuminating two minutes of the Republican debate last week.
It is a well-regarded historical truism that the Fourth Amendment was written by victims of government snooping, the 1770s version. The Framers wrote it to assure that the new federal government could never do to Americans what the king had done to the colonists.
What did the king do? He dispatched British agents and soldiers into the colonists’ homes and businesses ostensibly looking for proof of payment of the king’s taxes and armed with general warrants issued by a secret court in London.
A general warrant did not name the person or place that was the target of the warrant, nor did it require the government to show any suspicion or evidence in order to obtain it. The government merely told the secret court it needed the warrant — the standard was “governmental need” — and the court issued it. General warrants authorized the bearer to search wherever he wished and to seize whatever he found.
The Fourth Amendment requires the government to present to a judge evidence of wrongdoing on the part of a specific target of the warrant, and it requires that the warrant specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. The whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect the right to be left alone — privacy — by preventing general warrants.
The evidence of wrongdoing that the government must present in order to persuade a judge to sign a warrant must constitute probable cause. Probable cause is a level of evidence sufficient to induce a neutral judge to conclude that it is more likely than not that the government will find what it is looking for in the place it wants to search, and that what it is looking for will be evidence of criminal behavior.
But the government has given itself the power to cut constitutional corners. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act and the Freedom Act totally disregard the Fourth Amendment by dispensing with the probable cause requirement and substituting instead — incredibly — the old British governmental need standard.
Hence, under any of the above federal laws, none of which is constitutional, the NSA can read whatever emails, listen to whatever phone calls in real time, and capture whatever text messages, monthly bank statements, credit card bills, legal or medical records it wishes merely by telling a secret court in Washington, D.C., that it needs them.
And the government gets this data by area codes or zip codes, or by telecom or computer server customer lists, not by naming a person or place about whom or which it is suspicious.
These federal acts not only violate the Fourth Amendment, they not only bring back a system the Founders and the Framers hated, rejected and fought a war to be rid of, they not only are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, but they produce information overload by getting all the data they can about everyone. Stated differently, under the present search-them-all regime, the bad guys can get through because the feds have more data than they can analyze, thus diluting their ability to focus on the bad guys.
Among the current presidential candidates, only Paul has expressed an understanding of this and has advocated for fidelity to the Constitution. He wants the government to follow the Fourth Amendment it has sworn to uphold. He is not against all spying, just against spying on all of us. He wants the feds to get a warrant based on probable cause before spying on anyone, because that’s what the Constitution requires. The remaining presidential candidates — the Republicans and Hillary Clinton — prefer the unconstitutional governmental need standard, as does President Obama.
But Christie advocated an approach more radical than the president’s when he argued with Paul during the debate last week. He actually said that in order to acquire probable cause, the feds need to listen to everyone’s phone calls and read everyone’s emails first. He effectively argued that the feds need to break into a house first to see what evidence they can find there so as to present that evidence to a judge and get a search warrant to enter the house.
Such a circuitous argument would have made Joe Stalin happy, but it flunks American Criminal Procedure 101. It is the job of law enforcement to acquire probable cause without violating the Fourth Amendment. The whole purpose of the probable cause standard is to force the government to focus on people it suspects of wrongdoing and leave the rest of us alone. Christie wants the feds to use a fish net. Paul argues that the Constitution requires the feds to use a fish hook.
Christie rejects the plain meaning of the Constitution, as well as the arguments of the Framers, and he ignores the lessons of history. The idea that the government must break the law in order to enforce it or violate the Constitution in order to preserve it is the stuff of tyrannies, not free people.
Americans have got to drop their weird verbal tic of inserting “illegal” into any discussion of immigration.
After I pointed out on “Fox News” that the dispute between Sen. Rand Paul and Gov. Chris Christie over spying on “Americans” was entirely a problem of immigration, “Fox Insiders” put these two sentences together:
“[Coulter] explained that halting illegal immigration would help solve other key issues such as the economy and national security. ‘Don’t make terrorists citizens through immigration, and we’ll have a lot less of a national security problem,’ Coulter said, pointing to the attacks at the Boston Marathon and in Chattanooga.” (Emphasis added.)
Were those guys illegals? Did Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev swim across the Rio Grande to get to Boston? Did Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez hire coyotes to sneak him across the border so he could shoot four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga?
No. Our government invited them in.
Some of our other beloved legal immigrants include:
— Anwar al-Awlaki, the man whose death in Afghanistan provoked Rand Paul to stage a 13-hour filibuster in opposition to the use of drones against — I quote — “American citizens”;
— the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan;
— the attempted Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad;
— all those Somali immigrants living in Minnesota, bloc-voting for Al Franken before flying to Syria to fight with ISIS;
— Sirhan Sirhan;
— the 9/11 hijackers;
— the Pakistani terrorist Daood Sayed Gilani, American anchor baby, responsible for four days of bombings in Mumbai in 2008;
— the New York subway bomb plotter, Najibullah Zazi;
— Pakistani terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who shot a U.S. Army captain in 2010;
— the “local man” arrested this week for trying to organize an army of ISIS fighters in New York and New Jersey, Nader Saadeh — anchor baby “American citizen.”
ALL LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR CHILDREN! Why were any of them in this country? What are we getting out of this?
It’s not just the Fox website. Wherever I go on this book tour, I find people injecting “illegal” into the discussion, as if they’re being polite, like saying “Jewish” instead of “Jew.” But all these “homegrown,” “American” terrorists aren’t Americans, at all — except as a result of recent government policy.
This week, Sens. Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz have sent a letter to the Obama administration asking how many “non-citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens and natural-born U.S. citizens have been involved in terrorist-related activity since 1993.” National Review’s headline: “Cruz, Sessions: How Many ‘Homegrown’ Terrorists Were Illegal Immigrants?”It’s a national neurosis! (The headline was later changed, after complaints.) People simply refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces.
Admittedly, the media hide the evidence, but did anyone read this 2010 New York Times headline, “2 New Jersey Men in Terrorism Case Go Before a Judge,” and think, Oh my gosh! What is America coming to?
The “New Jersey men” were Mohamed Mahmood Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte. Alessa, born to legal immigrants from Jordan and the Palestinian territories, told his Boy Scout troop, “Osama bin Laden is a hero in my family” and expressed a desire to mutilate homosexuals and subordinate women. (He was the first member of his troop to earn a merit badge in female circumcision.)
Alessa’s co-conspirator, Almonte, is a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic. (Raising suspicions, he doesn’t play baseball.) He could be heard on a wiretap saying that he wanted U.S. troops to come home “in caskets.”
He also attended an anti-Israel rally with a large sign reading “DEATH TO ALL JUICE,” which he posted to his Facebook page — a social media platform created by a juice. (Naturalization officials must have high-fived one another when they got that guy.)
CNN was so relieved to have a “homegrown” terrorist who wasn’t a Muslim, the network abandoned its own rule book and identified Almonte as the child of “Latino immigrants” — amid fulsome descriptions of him as “an all-American kid” and an “all-American altar boy.”
So the good news is: Not all “American” terrorists are Muslim immigrants. Some are Latino immigrants — who typically become radicalized after coming into contact with one of our prized Muslim immigrants.
In addition to “DEATH TO ALL JUICE” Almonte, there was Bryant Neal Vinas, whose parents were legal immigrants from Argentina and Peru. Vinas fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan and, in 2008, plotted to bomb New York’s Penn Station.
At least he’s not one of those icky illegal immigrants!
I have a word limit, so I’ve limited today’s discussion of legal immigrants to the terrorists. But I note that the big news this week is about an illegal immigrant, Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, who raped, then murdered 64-year old Marilyn Pharis with a hammer at her home in Santa Maria, California. Has anyone noticed that Martinez Ramirez’s co-conspirator in the rape-torture-murder was legal immigrant Jose Fernando Villagomez?
It’s getting to the point where we’re going to need cattle prods and shock collars to break people of the neurotic compulsion to slip “ILLEGAL” in front of the word “immigrant.” The reality of legal immigration cannot make a dent in the elite’s make-believe world, where legal immigrants are only hot Swedish models, Rupert Murdoch and Sergey Brin.
Instead of Christie and Paul sparring over government policy on search warrants in a post-9/11 world, could we reconsider the government policy of admitting legal immigrants who need to be spied on?
A special assistant to the president — the president who recently lamented that an inability to pass gun control was one of the great failures of his administration — was arrested Friday after she allegedly fired a pistol at her boyfriend during a domestic dispute. Barvetta Singletary, 37, didn’t help advance her boss’ crusade against gun violence when she invited her boyfriend, a Capitol Hill police officer, over to her house for sex. Afterwards, she accused him of seeing another woman and demanded to see the texts on his cellphones. When he refused, Singletary reached into her boyfriend’s bag, according to the arresting documents, and pulled out the two cellphones and his service weapon, a .40-caliber Glock 23. She demanded he tell her the passwords to the phones. He refused. “Your phone is more important than me holding the gun on you,” she said, shooting the couch where he was sitting. Singletary was the Obama administration’s House legislative affairs liaison and was paid $125,000 a year. Let’s just say she wasn’t a low-level staffer. And her purposeful gun crime while working for this gun-hostile administration is more important than the time Dick Cheney accidentally shot a friend while hunting. But which one received more news coverage?
Ethan A. Huff
A rider attached to a federal funding bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would make it mandatory for sellers of genetically-modified (GMO) salmon to label the product as such in the interest of transparency and consumer confidence.
With overwhelming support, the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed that American consumers deserve the right to know whether or not they’re buying the GMO salmon product as opposed to natural farmed or wild salmon. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who proposed the labeling provision, says it only make sense for AquaBounty’s “AquAdvantage” salmon to have a clear designation on grocery store shelves.
“It would be the first time a genetically engineered animal, species, is approved for human consumption,” she stated, noting that Alaskan salmon is currently considered the “best in the world,” and that protecting its integrity and reputation with proper labeling is crucial.
A House vote on the USDA/FDA bill with the included rider is expected as early as next week, and proponents say they’re hopeful for its swift passage. No matter how “safe” the manufacturer of GMO salmon claims its product to be, consumers have a right to know what they’re purchasing and feeding their families.
Coming at the same time as a national vote on state and local GMO labeling, Sen. Murkowski clarified that GMO salmon is exceptionally threatening as salmon are living creatures that move about and spread their traits. GMO crops do the same thing, of course, but salmon are even more mobile.
“Corn doesn’t swim from field to field and propagate with other corn,” stated Sen. Murkowski. “Fish move.”
Nothing “natural” about GMO salmon
House Resolution 1599, a.k.a. the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015,” recently passed the House by an overwhelming majority. The controversial bill, which has been dubbed the “DARK” Act due to its provisions outlawing local and state GMO labeling legislation, interferes with Alaska’s efforts to label GMO salmon.
This “Deny Americans the Right to Know” legislation essentially nullifies all existing and future GMO labeling laws at the state and local levels, including those already passed in Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, and elsewhere.
As explained by Scott C. Tips from the National Health Federation, the DARK Act, if passed by the Senate and signed into law by Barack Obama, will:
1) Preempt all state and local laws governing the production and sale of GMO crops, in addition to GMO labeling.
2) Eliminate all “GMO-Free” zones throughout the U.S.
3) Shift the burden of labeling onto non-GMO and organic food producers.
4) Allow all dairy products manufactured from animals fed GMO feed or feed developed using GMO aids and enzymes, to be labeled as “non-GMO.”
5) And perhaps most importantly, allow companies to make “natural” claims about their GMO-containing products.
There’s absolutely nothing natural about GMO food products, no matter how they’re developed. Allowing them to be labeled as such will only further confuse consumers and put them at risk of developing health problems from inadvertent consumption of GMO products deceptively labeled as “natural.”
“Although touted as a means of ending a ‘confusing patchwork’ of GMO labeling laws, the DARK Act is really nothing more than camouflage for the removal of Americans’ right to know what is in their food and drink,” writes Tips about this agricultural violence.
“The Act ends the ‘confusing patchwork’ in the same way that Attila the Hun ended the ‘confusing patchwork’ of tribes in his sweeping path: He just annihilated them. We need real GMO labeling so that we can all make informed food choices.”
Be sure to contact your Senators and the White House and urge them to vote NO on HR 1599, a.k.a. the DARK Act: