The demand for organic produce extends far beyond the health food crowd, with news stories constantly emerging of big brands making the switch. Now, national pizza chain Papa John’s is offering freshly sliced organic vegetable toppings in 35 of its Lexington-area locations as part of a pilot program that they eventually intend to launch throughout the country.
Papa John’s has partnered with Green BEAN delivery to source the vegetables, which include Roma tomatoes, yellow onions, mushrooms, and green peppers. The produce is coming from Certified Organic family farms throughout the nation.
It can be hard to resist the lure of a freshly-baked pizza, especially when you’re short on time and need to feed a crowd. Even when people are eating fast food, they don’t want to ingest cancer-causing chemicals, and it’s always great to see brands recognize this. Pizza may not be the healthiest food out there, but the move reflects a positive trend and gives people more choices.
The chain’s Chief Ingredient Officer, Sean Muldoon, acknowledged that customers increasingly want to know exactly where their food is coming from and how it was produced. He said in a press release, “Moving into a test of organic produce is a natural progression as Papa John’s takes pride in our position of having the cleanest label in the pizza industry.”
So far, the response has been very positive, according to Muldoon. He says the change in ingredients has not changed the flavor of the pizza, nor has it impacted the price, but it will take time to assess the feedback and source enough organic toppings to roll it out throughout the nation. Although he says this is one of the more complicated endeavors they’ve taken on, the investment will be worth it. The Organic Trade Association reports that the sales of organic produce reached $14.4 billion in 2015. Thirteen percent of the fruits and vegetables sold in the U.S. are organic, and that figure is expected to reach 20 percent by the year 2020.
No MSG, preservatives, or artificial flavors
While the rest of the pizza currently contains conventional ingredients, there is a lot less to worry about in these pizzas than those of many other chains. Papa John’s is the first national pizza chain to remove harmful ingredients from its menu. Last January, they announced that they would no longer use artificial flavors and colors, joining ingredients that had already been banned in their restaurants like MSG, cellulose, partially hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, fillers in meat toppings, trans fats, and the preservatives BHA and BHT. These ingredients were removed from all of their pizzas, desserts, and sauces in keeping with their “Better Ingredients, Better Pizza” motto.
Last summer, they transitioned to chicken that was raised on a vegetarian diet without any human or animal antibiotics for their chicken toppings and chicken poppers. They have also switched to cage-free eggs. It’s still not health food, but it’s a step in the right direction.
This is far from a grassroots effort by a niche brand. When the third-largest pizza delivery chain in the world makes a move like this, it’s clear that organic is more than just a fad. Hopefully, other chains will follow their lead and start bringing customers the healthy ingredients that they increasingly demand. Last year, 82.3 percent of Americans had organic food in their homes, and restaurants that want to be successful need to take note and remove cancer-causing ingredients from their menus. After all, it’s hard to get repeat business if you kill your customers!
Deep-state prosecutors at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seek to throw 85-year-old Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio behind bars in a federal prosecution plagued by egregious violations of due process and federal law unless the new leadership at DOJ reconsiders the matter.
In 2007, the ACLU and the DOJ Civil Rights Division brought a racial profiling lawsuit against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, the Arizona county where Phoenix is located. It continued all the way through the Obama presidency, under Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
Snow held a civil contempt trial which some claim was timed to impose maximum political damage upon Arpaio. It is undisputed that the trial was entirely unnecessary because Arpaio had agreed to stipulate to the contempt charges to avoid the politically damaging trial, but Snow demanded a public proceeding. After the trial, Snow held Arpaio in civil contempt, then referred Arpaio to the DOJ for prosecution for criminal contempt.
Arpaio’s supporters cry foul that DOJ likewise timed its actions to harm Arpaio politically, announcing on the eve of Election Day 2016 that it would prosecute Arpaio for criminal contempt. Moreover, the DOJ is now insisting on jail time for Arpaio despite his very advanced age, threatening to take the 85-year-old sheriff away from his wife, who is battling cancer.
Perhaps the most suspicious aspect is that the DOJ is limiting the potential jail time to six months. That cap is important because the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require a jury trial for matters where the maximum imprisonment does not exceed six months. By keeping to this limit, the DOJ is guaranteeing that Arpaio’s fate will be decided by a federal judge, not by a jury of his peers in Arizona.
Arpaio’s case is riddled with problems.
The first problem is that the federal judge in this case, Snow, was required to recuse himself under federal law. Federal law at 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(ii) commands a judge to remove himself from a case if an immediate family member “is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding.” Snow’s brother-in-law is a partner at Covington & Burling, which was representing the other side of the lawsuit. Yet not only did Snow refuse to recuse himself, but he also did not even disclose his family’s involvement in the case to the other parties in the lawsuit.
In flagrant violation of federal law, once the conflict of interest became public, Snow requested and received a waiver from Arpaio’s attorneys, allowing him to stay on the case. Snow admitted that he was aware of the illegal conflict, adding that “it would have been the better course to notify the parties.” But the waiver itself is illegal, as 28 U.S.C. § 455(e) explicitly mandates that a judge’s disqualification can never be waived when a family member is involved.
Federal law also specifies that a judge must recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” There is ample cause for that here.
According to court documents, Snow’s wife told a friend that the judge “hates” Arpaio and “will do anything to get [Arpaio] out of office.” This statement was overheard both by the friend’s husband and also by their son. When the allegation was raised in open court, Snow did not deny that it was true, yet nonetheless continued to preside over the case rather than recuse himself.
Snow has also now admitted that he has had unauthorized ex parte conversations about the case. (“Ex parte” refers to the judge speaking with only one party to the case, sometimes without the other party’s knowledge. Due process generally requires that a judge never speak to lawyers for one side of the case without lawyers for the other side being present.)
When the judge appointed a monitor to supervise the sheriff’s office, he authorized that monitor to speak ex parte with only one party at a time. But it became clear late in the case that Snow was then having private conversations with the monitor, opening a conduit by which the plaintiffs were able to communicate directly with the judge without Arpaio’s team being present or knowing what was said. It’s now been revealed that these ex parte communications included the grounds for contempt, for which Arpaio now faces jail time.
Snow began discussing contempt when allegations surfaced that the sheriff’s office might have violated the court’s orders. Because this was happening as Arpaio’s reelection was underway, he decided to consent to a finding of civil contempt and agree to corrective measures in his department to resolve the matter quickly.
But Snow refused to take yes for an answer and insisted on a trial, which he dragged out for 21 days. The judge went so far as publicly saying he was “interested in sending a message” to Arpaio and wanted the career lawman to have “skin in the game” by ordering him to pay civil penalties out of his personal pockets.
The judge then took things a step further by referring the matter to Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch’s DOJ, recommending criminal prosecution. Snow ordered this criminal referral 11 days before Arpaio’s primary to be renominated for sheriff.
Arpaio survived the primary election but, with timing that looks too good to be a coincidence, the DOJ publicly announced on October 11, 2016 — the day before early voting began in Arizona — that the Obama administration would prosecute Arpaio on criminal charges.
Judge Susan Bolton — appointed by Bill Clinton — is presiding over the criminal trial that was brought by the Obama-Lynch DOJ. Although Bolton had the option of allowing a jury trial even for less than six months in jail, she refused to do so. She also refuses to allow any exploration of the DOJ’s motivations, including the previous administration’s outspoken opposition to Arpaio’s law-and-order policies regarding illegal aliens.
Arpaio is arguing through his lawyers that the judge should allow a jury trial because “the people’s voice should be heard one last time in determining whether the criminal contempt” sanction should be imposed. DOJ prosecutors oppose this position, even though that is the entire purpose of the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial process.
Unless something changes, Arpaio is expected to stand trial next month where one Clinton-appointed judge will decide whether to send this elderly and outspoken Republican law enforcement officer to jail for up to six months, a jail where many of the inmates were put behind bars by him.
You’ve been snookered folks! By that poor elderly doctor who was involuntarily dragged from his seat, had his face smashed in, and was beaten unconscious by the evil airport security at the behest of United Airlines.
Because there’s no evidence any of that was true. It was in fact a premeditated temper tantrum gone viral, comprising one 69-year-old Vietnamese-American David Dao, a medical doctor who lost his license, planning a lawsuit from the moment United first politely asked him to give up his seat. He demanded to be dragged, did an excellent impersonation of Ned Beatty’s character in that horrific scene in Deliverance, and struck his lip on an armrest. From the many videos taken by numerous passengers, obviously from numerous angles, there’s no evidence of a beating, a “serious” concussion, or bodily damage beyond that lip.
Although some like the Huffington Post want us to ignore his sordid past as inconsequential or “blaming the victim,” it’s important that Dao in 1995 was charged with 98 felony drug counts for illegally prescribing and trafficking painkillers, sometimes in exchange for homosexual sex. (He’s married. To a woman.) That normally would get you identified as unreliable scum. He surrendered his medical license and even now is only allowed to practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.
To be sure, United deserves blame and played into Dao’s hands—not entirely a metaphor since the good doctor has also made hundreds of thousands of dollars on the professional poker circuit. It appears that by law they were supposed to have upped the payment to $1,350 to make room for four United employees who needed to get to Louisville right away. Why did they stop at $800 (plus a hotel voucher)? Further, this all should have occurred before boarding, but there passengers apparently were only offered $400.
“It’s clearly the man’s fault that security had to drag him off, said one of the passengers who uploaded his video of the incident. He was resisting.” “I don’t blame the security guards at all,” he told Fox News. That was “the only way they could get him off the plane.”
But once he was asked to give up his seat, along with three other passengers who willing obliged, Dao’s mental gears began to whirl. One video depicts him telling someone by telephone “I make lawsuit against United Airlines for discrimination.” Yet another video shows him insisting that he be dragged. All the while he held up the departure, as indeed he would again as everyone had to leave while the blood was cleaned up.
Over time his injuries have grown dramatically. He checked himself into a hospital where first he, then one of the lawyers from the two law firms he’s retained, claimed he suffered from “everything.” Curious diagnosis, that. Though none of the videos show it, he also claims to have lost two front teeth, a broken nose, and a “serious” concussion. Obviously, this all appeared off camera, after he left the plane. One of his lawyers repeated that curious diagnosis. (He’s retained not one but two Chicago-area law firms. Natch.)
Except that… he came back on the plane, melodramatically uttering over and over again, “They’ll kill me.” He clearly showed bleeding from the lip but there was no other evident damage. I’ve had three broken noses; I know what they look like. Broken. Easy way to settle this; a picture from Dao or his lawyers. There are no pictures.
This is obvious nonsense, so how did he get so far with it?
THE BLACK MIRROR
In part, welcome to the world of The Black Mirror. That’s a highly-regarded Netflix series about a dystopian near-future in which social media dictates “the truth.” The name refers to a blank cell phone or tablet screen.
The Sturm und Drang began with a short clip uploaded first to Facebook and then other media. It began just as Dao was pulled from his seat. You didn’t see him being apologetically requested to leave first by United employees and then by security. Nor the phone call nor daring to be dragged. With social media, he who uploads or tweets first dictates the story.
Now add the opposite of the laugh track, the scream track. Several passengers yelling “Omigawd!” and chiding the security guards. Laugh tracks tell us “This is funny; laugh!” Scream tracks tell us “This is horrible! Be outraged!”
With social media dictating what news is, the event became clickbait
With social media dictating what news is, the event became clickbait (”Must See Pictures of United Passenger!”) and the mainstream media “analysts” jumped in. It was easy to choose sides given the Sarah Bernhardt performance and the perceived American loathing of airlines. Part of this is the result of 9/11 restrictions, but part is due to consolidations that have given many airlines monopolies on routes and let them do such things as charge us for pretzels and squeeze us into tiny spaces that only a chiropractor could love. (Curiously, while only 35 percent of Americans rate US airlines positively, only 32 percent rate them negatively according to Gallup. So there seems to be a whole lot of ambivalence.)
The London Independent went so far as to say Dao’s life was “ruined,” while one of his team of attorneys asserted Dao “said that being dragged down the aisle was more horrifying and harrowing than what he experienced when leaving Vietnam.” By tomorrow it will be worse than having been gassed at Auschwitz.
But part of the phenomenon long precedes YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and social media dictating the news. It’s the American cult of victimization.
American cult of victimization
Thirteen years ago I penned a column called “Victims Are Our New Heroes, noting that at one time that meant putting yourself at risk by going beyond normal civic or military duties. Yet Magic Johnson went from “sports hero” (another misnomer) to All-American Hero by virtue of contracting AIDS. That simple. Since then, in embeds in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’ve gotten to know real heroes, those who died or gave up body parts (self included) or at least risked doing so. So I’ve become even less sympathetic to the nouveaux “heroes.”
Dao’s quick thinking and theatrics show he knows how to play the system as well as he knows how to play cards, combining social media and the cult of victimization into what presumably will be a very hefty payout for a very dishonest man.
Dairy industry front group declares eating “clean food” promotes disease; tells youth to drink DIRTY MILK for lifelong health
In the latest hilarious example of fake science from a dirty, dishonest industry, the so-called National Osteoporosis Society — little more than a junk science front group for the dirty dairy industry — has declared clean eating to be a “dangerous timebomb.” According to the group, clean food promotes disease, while the best way to support lifelong health is to consume dirty foods such as processed milk and cheese that are loaded with artificial hormones and pesticides. (I’m not making this up. See the link below…)
Right on cue, the dishonest mainstream media now decrees clean eating to be a “cult” that could cause horrible disease. Anyone who avoids processed sugar, homogenized milk, pesticide-laden foods or nutritionally-depleted refined starches is now condemned as a “cultist” by the hopelessly dishonest (and nutritionally illiterate) media, which depends on dairy industry advertising for its revenues.
“[T]he charity said many of those following the trends had no idea that cutting out major food groups could jeopardise their long-term health, with bones still developing in early adulthood,” reports The Telegraph in a dairy industry propaganda piece that demonizes clean food diets. The same article goes on to condemn celebrities “who have boasted how they have cut out gluten, dairy, grains and refined sugars” as if that’s a horrible sin of some kind.
People who choose to eat clean food are further smeared in the story which somehow equates clean food with a “poor diet,” explaining:
A poor diet for those in their teens and early twenties now could see a significant rise in the numbers of people suffering fractures and the complications associated with them in the future.
The story goes on to ridiculously equate drinking milk with preventing osteoporosis while insisting that people who eat clean, unprocessed foods are committing nutritional suicide.
Yes, The Telegraph is the same UK-based publication that openly attacks breastfeeding, falsely declaring that breastfeeding does nothing for the IQ of your child while promoting anti-breastfeeding propaganda groups that push infant formula from globalist food conglomerates. The message from The Telegraph? Human breast milk is BAD for babies, but processed, homogenized cow’s milk is GREAT for children and teens.
Folks, it doesn’t get any more idiotic than this. The Telegraph has just labeled itself a media “DUNCE” for life (as well as a real danger to the health of UK children who might be negatively influenced by the publisher’s dangerous nutritional illiteracy). If there’s any publication that should be labeled “fake news” on health matters, it’s The Telegraph. And this story was authored by their Health Editor!
Fact check: Processed MILK does not equal strong bones
The wildly dishonest dairy industry has long attempted to equate drinking milk with developing strong bones while glossing over the cardiovascular risks of consuming a processed, homogenized, pasteurized milk product.
But a study published in the British Medical Journal found that people who drank three or more glasses of milk a day did not show a decrease in bone fractures compared with those who drank less than one glass of milk a day. In fact, people who drank the most milk were twice as likely to die early.
Here are some other truths about milk the dairy industry doesn’t want you to realize:
Truth #1) Strong bones depend far more on vitamin D than milk. Most people get plenty of calcium in their diet, but without sufficient vitamin D in your blood, your bones can’t efficiently use the calcium you’re consuming.
Truth #2) While raw milk can be very healthy, homogenized milk is artificially altered to change the structure of the fat molecules, making them more dangerous to your health and a major contributing factor to cardiovascular disease (and atherosclerosis).
Truth #3) The pasteurization of milk destroys the lactase enzymes that make milk more easily digestible by consumers. This is one reason why so many people can’t consume milk without experiencing extreme mucous, sinus congestion and even constipation: They can’t digest the product because the lactase has been deactivated, causing many people to believe they are lactose-intolerant.
Truth #4) There’s more calcium in a glass of broccoli juice than a glass of milk. If you really want calcium and other nutrients, raw food juicing is by far the best way to get more calcium into your diet. The “milk = calcium” myth is a total fabrication of the dishonest dairy industry, which has about as much scientific credibility as Big Tobacco.
Truth #5) Most commercial dairy operations are cruel, inhumane animal factories that subject dairy cows to excruciating pain and suffering in order to produce corporate profits.
Truth #6) Both BLOOD and PUS are legally allowed in commercial milk products. Few consumers know that pasteurized milk contains 150 times higher levels of blood and pus than fresh, raw milk.
WARNING: Graphic video below, showing the extreme abuse of dairy cows:
The dairy industry is totally freaking out that people are learning the truth about “dirty milk”
As the truth about the deceptions of the factory-run dairy industry continues to spread across social media, the dairy industry is ramping up its public relations propaganda arm, now trying to scare people into drinking more milk by claiming their bones will break if they don’t. Even more shockingly, by attacking the “clean eating” movement that avoids processed dairy and cheese products, the dairy industry is admitting its products are DIRTY food.
Even more absurdly, the industry insists that you can only be healthy if you eat sufficient quantities of their “dirty food” which is waning in terms of public demand.
It’s already obvious this deceptive P.R. campaign is going to wildly backfire on the dairy industry. Do these corporate morons really believe that they can scare people into drinking more dirty milk by running around screaming that “clean food” is a horribly harmful diet?
It’s just laughable. Pathetic, sad and laughable. If anything, all this is yet another great reminder why you should never buy factory produced milk or cheese products again.
Personally, I’m a fan of making my own almond milk using a blender, fresh almonds, a nut milk bag and some water. It’s the best-tasting milk in the world, and it’s not produced with hormones, GMOs, pesticides or cruelty. If you want to consume cow’s milk, get whole, fresh RAW cow’s milk from a local farmer (and hope the food police don’t arrest you for the “crime” of purchasing real food).
Follow more news about the food supply at FoodSupply.news.
The man who allegedly killed U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in 2010 using a gun purchased through an Obama Administration gun running program has been arrested in Mexico.
Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes, a member of a Mexican cartel, was arrested by Mexican officials following a joint U.S.-Mexico police task force including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Marshals and the U.S. Border Patrol, according to an exclusive report by Fox News.
Now, Osorio-Arellanes is facing extradition to the U.S. for the murder of Terry after the task force put out a $250,000 reward for the suspect’s capture. Law enforcement arrested Osorio-Arellanes along the border of Sinaloa and Chihuahua, two Mexican states.
Terry was killed during a shoot-out with a “rip crew” that was part of Osorio-Arellanes’ cartel organization. The group frequented the U.S.-Mexico border in order to rob drug dealers passing through the region.
More than 500 weapons seized by federal agents have been traced back to the Fast and Furious Operation, in which the Department of Justice allowed Mexican cartels to illegally purchase guns in the U.S. in order to move them into Mexico.
The weapons were supposed to be traced to high-ranking cartel figures, however, the DOJ lost track of thousands and bolstered the arsenals of criminal enterprises.
In December 2010, Terry was killed with a gun traced back to the Fast and Furious Operation, as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agent Jaime Zapata, who was killed in Mexico in February 2011.
Texas leaders and farm owners secured a victory in the battle against the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) attempted land grab along the banks of the Red River. The federal agency announced it is suspending the surveys ordered during the Obama Administration to justify the attempted takeover of 90,000 acres of land.
The BLM admitted this week admitted in a letter issued on March 29 (attached below) that it used an “incorrect methodology” in its justification for the attempted taking of land that had been in the possession of many Texas landowners for generations. “Having reviewed this deposition testimony and other new information, the BLM believes the survey methodology was used in error and may have caused errors in identifying the location of the Gradient Boundary,” Acting Cadastral Survey Chief Stephen Beyerlein wrote in the letter.
“The BLM’s admission that it used incorrect methodology in these surveys and the decision to suspend the surveys is welcome news,” U.S. Representative Mac Thornberry (R-TX) said in a statement obtained by Breitbart Texas. “The portions of the river that the agency has surveyed strayed widely from the accepted gradient boundary survey method established by the Supreme Court in Oklahoma v. Texas. It is encouraging that the BLM has admitted their error and that all administrative action will be suspended until the matter is resolved. I will continue working with the landowners, local and state officials, and Senator Cornyn (R-TX) until this issue is resolved once and for all.” Thornberry is the author of the “Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act” which passed earlier this year.
Texas farmers applauded the action by the BLM. “We’re pleased the Bureau of Land Management has done the right thing by admitting that the land surveys do not take the movement of the Red River into consideration,” Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) President Russell Boening said in a written statement. “TFB has been involved in this situation for years. We take it very seriously when government decides that private property no longer belongs to those who have purchased, paid taxes and hold titles to it.”
“When this was brought to our attention by TFB member Tommy Henderson, we knew we had to act,” Boening said. “We sent a video crew to Tommy’s place to document his fight for family land along the river. That video went viral and brought much-needed light to the situation.”
Following a tip from now-Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, Breitbart Texas initially brought national attention to the issue that the BLM’s actions threatened landowners like Tommy Henderson whose family owned some of this land for generations. “Several local news outlets had written about the issue,” BLM Spokesman Paul McGuire told Breitbart Texas at the time. “But when Breitbart wrote about it, I called Washington and said, ‘This thing is going to blow up now.’”
And blow up it did. The following day, many national outlets picked up the story and ran with it. Then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas the next day, ““I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.” He fired off a letter to then-BLM Director Neil Kornze demanding answers on the issue.
The BLM responded they weren’t taking the land because “It is already ours.”
Texas’ leadership including then-Attorney General Greg Abbott, then-Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, then-General Land Office Commissioner Jerry Patterson, and State Senator Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) joined with Texas’ U.S. Senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, and U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry to try to get the BLM to release the land back to the Texans who had believed they owned the land, in some cases for many generations. Then Governor Rick Perry weighed in on the issue in May when he said the “the federal government already owns too much land.”
Following the BLM’s announcement, now-Governor Abbott said, “The BLM’s prior actions have been hostile to landowners and their property rights, and I’m pleased an end has come to this unconscionable land grab. (This) decision by the Trump administration is a victory for Texas landowners along the Red River and for our constitutional rights.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in federal court in November 2015 challenging the federal encroachment on Texas land. “The borders of any state are a fundamental expression of its sovereignty, and are established through extensive surveys and legal precedent,” Paxton said at the time in a statement obtained by Breitbart Texas. “We will not allow the federal government to arbitrarily infringe upon Texas land and undermine the private property rights of our citizens. The federal government must follow the law and recognize our correct borders, consistent with decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court defining the boundary formed by the Red River.”
The following month, Texas General Land Office Commiccioner George P. Bush also joined in the lawsuit defending the Texas landowners.
Paxton praised the decision made this week by the BLM to back down on the land grab issue. “This latest action by the Trump administration protects the property rights of Texans as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court and prevents the federal government from infringing upon Texas’ sovereign borders,” the Texas AG said in a written statement. “It was our contention all along that the BLM’s surveys were conducted improperly and unlawfully. We will vigilantly defend Texas’ border from federal overreach.”
The BLM has suspended all administrative actions regarding these 90,000 acres of sovereign Texas land, the TFB stated.
In August 2015, Tommy Henderson won his personal battle with the BLM over the acreage his family lost in a federal lawsuit. He regained full ownership and control over the land after being forced to pay a “statutorily required payment of $1.25 per acre,” for the land his family had owned since 1904.
In response to this week’s action by the BLM, Henderson told the TFB, “The fight’s not over yet, but we’ve made a pretty good step. We have to get this fixed, so BLM never comes back again and tries this.”
Despite the numerous debates and widespread outrage against neonicotinoids, research into how these popular insecticides affect environmental and public health is still relatively new. Opinions about their safety are divided. While one site suggests a strong link between neonicotinoid use and local pollinator collapses combined with adverse health effects in other animals, another site, consisting of agricultural research, contests the insecticides’ notorious bee-killing reputation.
This class of agricultural chemicals is one of the most commonly used insecticides across the country. Since neonics, as they are nicknamed, were released in the 1990s as the more environmentally-friendly pesticides on the market, nobody has ever questioned their safety on human health, until recently. Past research found that neonics not only wreak havoc on the nervous systems of insects, but they may also cause developmental or neurological problems in humans too.
In 2015, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) first started to detect neonicotinoid pollutants in more than half of the samples taken from streams and rivers throughout the United States. Alarmed by these findings, chemists and engineers at the USGS and University of Iowa wanted to investigate if neonicotinoids also end up in the tap water millions of Americans drink or use for cooking.
Are there dangerous insecticides lurking in your drinking water?
For the very first time, Gregory H. LeFevre, a University of Iowa environmental engineer, and his colleagues have identified neonicotinoids in treated tap water. Touted as being safer than other chemicals on the market, some experts found that chronic, low-level exposure to neonicotinoids can attack cells in the human nervous system, which could result in memory loss, according to Japanese researchers.
Furthermore, these nicotine-like insecticides bind and activate receptors in cells located in the central nervous system and peripheral nervous system. Overstimulation of these receptors can cause paralysis and even death, reported the Daily Mail Online.
Co-author Dr. Gregory LeFevre told The Washington Post that while these findings are important, they are not a reason for immediate alarm. The samples were taken over a seven-week span, just after the region’s farmers planted maize and soy seeds, which are often coated with neonicotinoids.
The scientists tested water that went through two different water treatment systems. One system, serving Iowa City, using granular activated carbon filtration that dissolves organic compounds, removed 100 percent of clothianidin, 94 percent of imidacloprid, and 85 percent of thiamethoxam. The rapid sand filtration system serving the University of Iowa, however, was only able to remove about one percent, eight percent, and 44 percent of the same neonics. These results prompted the university to install a similar water filtration system on its campus.
No regulations of neonicotinoid levels in our drinking water
Since there are no conclusive research papers available linking neonics to adverse health effects in humans, regulators and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not yet identified safe levels of neonicotinoids in drinking water.
In an email to the Washington Post, Dr. Melissa Perry, a public health researcher at George Washington University, said that there is currently no national effort being made to measure the level of neonics that are ending up into our bodies, be it through water or food.
She added that more comprehensive assessments are needed to detect if common neonics are also contaminating public water supplies in other parts of the country. The new study provides further evidence that neonics are present in our daily environments and, in order to protect public health, should not be ignored.
Not sure if your tap water is fit for human consumption? Mike Adams,’ (the Health Ranger and founder of Natural News) international accredited lab (CWC labs) can help you to find out the truth.
An estimated 4,000 Somali migrants in the U.S. are expected to be deported by President Donald Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
In an interview, Somalia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Ahmed Isse Awad said the number of Somalis ICE is looking to deport is at least 4,000, with the vast majority not being currently held in immigration detention centers.
“We learned through immigration sources that the total number of the Somalis that are in the books of [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to be removed are close to 4,000,” Awad told Voice of America.
Over the course of the next few months, Awad said some 300 Somalis would be deported, saying he was waiting for information as to who those deportees would be.
The numbers released by the ambassador show a steep departure from the days of lax immigration enforcement under the Bush and Obama Administrations.
Awad said that during Obama’s last two years in office, only 170 Somalis were deported for either committing crimes or having their asylum requests rejected.
The Trump Administration is expected to double that number in a few months.
In a recent east coast operation, ICE arrested 82 criminal illegal immigrants, including two criminal aliens who were suspected of being MS-13 gang members, with ties to the El Salvadorian organization, Breitbart Texas reported.
The sheriff of Oregon’s most populous sanctuary county said he cannot help federal immigration officials because of state law. His office released a Mexican criminal alien convicted of sexual assault despite a hold from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
Multnomah County Sheriff Mike Reese told Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson that Oregon law prohibits his providing assistance to enforcing federal law during an interview conducted by Lisa Fletcher that will air on Sunday morning. “The state law is a very clear guideline for local law enforcement and sheriff’s statewide,” Reese explained. “We can’t expend county resources or personnel towards immigration enforcement.”
Fletcher countered that one state legislator is “furious about this.”
“He says you’re not abiding by the law by not detaining some of these illegal immigrants who are held on very, fairly serious charges or who have committed fairly serious crimes, are a risk to the community,” she stated. “How do you respond to him?”
The sheriff danced around the question, stating they hold people in their jails who “are accused of crimes in our communities.” He says he hold criminals until a judge says otherwise. Sheriff Reese said by not acting as immigration agents he believes the country is better off. “It simply worries me that we’ve spent so much time and energy building community trust and something outside of our control may damage that.”
Crime victims might feel otherwise. A report issued on Thursday by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials revealed that Sheriff Reese’s jail released a Mexican national on February 15. Immigration officials issued an immigration detainer on March 21, 2016. The report indicates the Mexican criminal alien has a prior conviction for sexual assault.
The Declined Detainer Outcome Report for the week of January 28-February 3 revealed the release by the sheriff’s office of another Mexican national convicted of assault and a Tongan national convicted of amphetamine possession.
Full Measure also presented an interview with immigration fugitive Francisco Aguirre, calling him the “poster child” for the sanctuary city of Portland. Aguirre, a Salvadoran national who fled to the U.S. as a teen. Oregon convicted the Salvadoran in 2014 for driving under the influence. Fletcher said he managed to avoid spending any time in jail for the crime, but it put him on the radar of ICE Enforcement Removal Operations officers.
“A month later ICE knock on my door… tried to take me in custody. I let them know clearly that they wasn’t [sic] welcome there, and they must leave the property because it was private property,” Aguirre said defiantly. After the ICE officers left, Aguirre fled to Augustana Lutheran Church where he held up in a sanctuary for 81 days.
Aguirre believes that despite entering the country illegally and committing another crime, he has earned the right to remain in the U.S.
“You’re here illegally; you committed a crime, a crime that very well could have killed somebody,” Fletcher stated. “Why do you deserve to stay in this country?”
“I understand that I commit a crime by getting a DUI. But, we all, as a human being, make mistakes, and we always deserve a second chance,” Aguirre said, rationalizing his prior actions. “I been contribute [sic] to the economy of this country. I been paying my taxes, since I been living in this country. I’m willing to help my community whenever they need.”
Aguirre remains safe under Sheriff Reese’s and the other elected officials of Portland’s sanctuary city protections. Or, maybe not. Late in March, ICE ERO officers carried out a targeted enforcement operation in three Pacific Northwest states, including Oregon. During that operation. Officers arrested more than 80 criminals aliens — 19 of those included aliens with DUI convictions.
Andrew P. Napolitano
The issue of federal government surveillance of Americans has largely occupied Washington politicians and the media since President Donald Trump first accused the administration of his predecessor of spying on him while he and his colleagues worked at Trump Tower in New York City during the presidential election campaign and during the presidential transition.
Trump’s allegations were initially dismissed as a diversionary tactic to get the attention of the media and the interest of the public off allegations made against the Trump campaign that it conspired with agents of Russian intelligence to facilitate Russian interference with the presidential election. Even some very smart colleagues of mine dismissed Trump’s allegations, arguing that no one in Washington found them believable.
Then the director of the FBI, James Comey, and the director of the National Security Agency, America’s 60,000-person-strong domestic spying apparatus, Adm. Mike Rogers, testified under oath that they knew of no surveillance of candidate or President-elect Trump at Trump Tower. When I heard these denials, I thought them to be odd at best and erroneous at worst because I was privy to credible chatter in the intelligence community that Trump’s allegations were correct, and I knew that the FBI had revealed it was examining the activities of the Trump campaign to look for Russian involvement and that such an examination would surely find the surveillance of Trump that the intelligence community was chatting about.
Then the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., revealed that whistleblowers from the intelligence community had approached him with evidence supportive of Trump’s claims. He viewed this evidence and revealed that it showed surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump, but it had nothing to do with Russia. Then Nunes’ Democratic counterpart on the same committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who had complained loud and long that he had not seen the documents, viewed the same documents and afterward remained essentially mute.
Before all this happened, unnamed sources released a portion of transcripts of telephone conversations between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, then Trump’s national security adviser in the White House. The conversations had taken place before Trump was inaugurated. Though only excerpts were revealed — excerpts intended to embarrass Flynn and taunt Trump — they arguably showed Flynn counseling the ambassador to expect different treatment of American sanctions on Russia from the Trump administration than they had received from the Obama administration. However, that was an expectation that any rational person would already have had. This revelation and its aftermath did prove embarrassing to Flynn and to Trump, and Flynn resigned.
How did anyone obtain transcripts of conversations involving Trump campaign or transition officials? Here is the back story.
The American public has permitted the most massive and thorough domestic surveillance apparatus in history to come about right under our collective and formerly freedom-loving nose. Beginning in 1978 and continuing up to the present, Congress has passed statutes that purport to confine domestic spying to foreign people communicating with anyone in America. Yet that confinement is a myth — a myth accepted even by the Congresses that have authorized and reauthorized it.
In theory, spying in America is done pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and subsequent statutes that provide for the intervention of judges who issue warrants. In practice, the warrants are general warrants. They are not based on suspicion. They do not identify the person whose communications are to be intercepted. They permit the NSA to search where it wishes — for example, in certain ZIP codes, area codes and service provider customer lists — and retain whatever it finds.
On top of this subterfuge is the below-the-radar-screen behavior of the NSA, which looks to a Reagan-era executive order to justify its capture in real time of every telephone conversation and every computer keystroke of everyone in the U.S. since 2005.
That massive amount of raw data is stored digitally in NSA facilities in Maryland and in Utah, and it is available for examination by select people. One of the people who have access to it is the president’s national security adviser. My colleagues at Fox News and at other media outlets have reported that Susan Rice, President Obama’s final national security adviser, sought and obtained transcripts of conversations of people at Trump Tower, ostensibly looking for a connection to Russia. Rice has admitted this.
Yet in that process, someone revealed the name of an American whose communications had been examined — known as unmasking. Unmasking is lawful in private only if necessary to comprehend a national security-related and lawfully intercepted communication. It is never lawful to leak publicly.
If unmasking is done for any non-national security purpose — such as politics, curiosity, embarrassment or revenge — or if it is from a surveilled conversation that was not national security-related, the unmasking is criminal. The use of intelligence data for political purposes is a felony. Its unlawful use is espionage because the identity of Americans surveilled is top-secret — the highest level of classification. Someone unmasked Lt. Gen. Flynn and most likely President Trump.
The wrongful exposure of top-secret material is the same crime committed by Hillary Clinton when she placed top-secret emails in non-secure venues. Yet if the allegations against Rice are true, her behavior was arguably worse. Clinton acted with gross negligence. Rice’s alleged behavior may have been intentional.
Michael Doran, who worked in national security in the George W. Bush White House, has argued that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” Yet this is far worse than a hole in the wall; it is a hole in the Constitution. Mass spying without suspicion and the select revelation of its fruits for political purposes is far worse than anything the government of King George III did to the colonists, and they fought a war to secede from his country.
How much longer will Americans permit the government to pull the wool over our eyes? Whatever happened to the constitutional right to privacy? Does the Constitution — which requires a showing of some evidence of wrongdoing to a judge before the government may intercept any communications — still mean what it says?