Ben Carson blasts 'vicious,' white liberal critics as ‘the most racist out there’

Dr. Ben Carson on Tuesday blasted his critics for heat he’s taken recently over controversial remarks on gay marriage, calling his white liberal detractors “the most racist out there.”

“They want to shut us up completely, and that’s why the attacks against me have been so vicious,” Carson said on the Mark Levin radio show. “I represent an existential threat to them. They need to shut me up, they need to get rid of me, they can’t find anything else to delegitimize me, so they take my words, misinterpret them, and try to make it seem that I’m a bigot.”

Levin said Carson was being targeted for his race.

“You’re attacked also in many respects because of your race,” Levin said. “You’re not supposed to talk like this, and a lot of white liberals just don’t like it, do they?”

“They’re the most racist people there are because they put you in a little category, a box,” Carson responded. “How could you dare come off the plantation?”

The comments come after the rising GOP star apologized for remarks he made last week linking homosexuality to bestiality.

Carson said that marriage is “a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition.”

NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Carson, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, initially defended the comments as taken “out of context and completely misunderstood,” but the furor provoked students at his university to petition to have him removed as this year’s commencement speaker. Carson has said he would step aside if that’s what the students wanted.

Carson became an overnight sensation on the right after criticizing President Obama, who was seated directly to his right, at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year.

View Comments

View the original article here

Latest Foreclosure Settlement Panned By Critics For Letting Banks ‘Sweep Past Abuses Under The Rug’

Federal regulators yesterday announced an $8.5 billion settlement with 10 of the nation’s biggest banks over various foreclosure abuses. According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, “The sum includes $3.3 billion in direct payments to eligible borrowers and $5.2 billion in other assistance, such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.”

This settlement — which comes in addition to the $25 billion foreclosure fraud settlement crafted last year — is meant to provide redress to homeowners who had to deal with “independent” foreclosure reviews that were not so independent. But Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), for one, believes that the settlement gives banks a pass on their contemptible behavior:

“I have serious concerns that this settlement may allow banks to skirt what they owe and sweep past abuses under the rug without determining the full harm borrowers have suffered,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D.- Md., a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and a vocal critical of the government regulators handling of the mortgage crisis.

Other housing and fair lending advocates agree. “For many people this will be the end of the line,” said Diane Thompson, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. “This is a much lower number for the banks compared to what they were at risk for.” “The regulators have decided to replace the fox in the henhouse with the wolf,” added John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

“We commend regulators for their ongoing efforts to hold financial institutions accountable for misdeeds during the foreclosure crisis, but the payments in this settlement represent a mere fraction of the total harm inflicted on borrowers and communities,” said Julia Gordon, Director of Housing Finance and Policy at the Center for American Progress. The last foreclosure settlement was gamed by the banks, who counted aid they were providing anyway towards their settlement total.

View the original article here

UPDATE 1-FDA closer to approving biotech salmon, critics furious

* FDA to take comments for 60 days before giving final OK

* Critics seek action from Congress, threaten to sue

Dec 21 (Reuters) - A controversial genetically engineered salmon has moved a step closer to the consumer's dining table after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it.

AquAdvantage salmon eggs would produce fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon. If it gets a final go-ahead, it would be the first food from a transgenic animal - one whose genome has been altered - to be approved by the FDA.

The AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon egg was developed by AquaBounty Technology to speed up production to meet global seafood demand.

In a draft environmental assessment, the FDA affirmed earlier findings that the biotech salmon was not likely to be harmful. It said it would take comments from the public on its report for 60 days before making a final decision on approval.

"With respect to food safety, FDA has concluded that food from AquAdvantage salmon is as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon, and that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption," the FDA assessment states.

AquaBounty officials said they were caught by surprise by the news that its product was a step closer to approval as years of controversy had followed the company's application for a go-ahead from the regulator. They said they did not know the timing or details of the process the FDA will follow following the 60-day comment period.

"We are encouraged that the environmental assessment is being released and hope the government continues the science-based regulatory process," said AquaBounty Chief Executive Ronald Stotish.

Critics say the new salmon is a "dangerous experiment" and have pressured the FDA to reject it. They say the FDA has relied on outdated science and substandard methods for assessing the new fish.

"We are deeply concerned that the potential of these fish to cause allergic reactions has not been adequately researched," said Michael Hansen, a scientist at the Consumers Union. "FDA has allowed this fish to move forward based on tests of allergenicity of only six engineered fish, tests that actually did show an increase in allergy-causing potential."

There were also concerns the FDA would not require the genetically modified salmon to be labeled as such, and some critics said they may file a lawsuit to prevent what they fear could be the imminent approval of the engineered fish.

"Congress can still keep FDA from unleashing this dangerous experiment," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group. "Although this latest FDA decision is a blow to consumer confidence, we encourage everyone to contact their members of Congress and demand this reckless decision be overturned."

The Center for Food Safety, another non-profit consumer protection group, was highly critical of the FDA report, and officials said they might sue the regulator over the issue.

"It is extremely disappointing that the Obama Administration continues to push approval of this dangerous and unnecessary product," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. "The GE salmon has no socially redeeming value. It's bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment."

FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky said no final decisions have been made on labeling or on the application for approval.

"The release of these materials is not a decision on whether food from AquAdvantage Salmon requires additional labeling; nor is it a decision on the new animal drug application currently under review. It also does not provide a final food safety determination," Liscinsky said.

The AquAdvantage salmon would be an all-female population with eggs produced in a facility on Prince Edward Island in Canada and shipped to a "grow-out facility" in Panama, where they would be reared to market size and harvested for processing.

(Editing by Bernadette Baum; and Peter Galloway)

View the original article here

FDA moves closer to approval of GMO fish, critics outraged

* FDA to take comments for 60 days before giving final OK

* Critics seek action from Congress, threaten to sue

Dec 21 (Reuters) - A controversial genetically engineered salmon has moved a step closer to the consumer's dining table after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it.

AquAdvantage salmon eggs would produce fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon. It would be the first food from a transgenic animal - one whose genome has been altered - that has been approved by the FDA.

The AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon egg was developed by AquaBounty Technology,, to speed up production to meet global seafood demand.

In a draft environmental assessment Friday, the FDA affirmed earlier findings that the biotech salmon was not likely to be harmful. It said it would take comments from the public on its report for 60 days before making a final decision on approval.

AquaBounty officials said they were caught by surprise by the FDA's news that it was a step closer to approval, as years of controversy had followed the company's application for the go-ahead from the regulator.

"We are encouraged that the environmental assessment is being released and hope the government continues the science-based regulatory process," said AquaBounty CEO Ronald Stotish.

Critics say the new salmon is a "dangerous experiment" and have pressured FDA to reject the genetically engineered salmon.

They said Friday they may file a lawsuit to prevent what they fear could be imminent approval of the engineered fish on the grounds that the FDA has failed to conduct a thorough assessment and because it wasn't clear if the fish would pose a threat to people who eat it or to wild fish.

They were also concerned the FDA wouldn't require the fish to be labeled.

"Congress can still keep FDA from unleashing this dangerous experiment," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group. "Although this latest FDA decision is a blow to consumer confidence, we encourage everyone to contact their members of Congress and demand this reckless decision be overturned."

The Center for Food Safety, another non-profit consumer protection group, was highly critical of the FDA report, and officials said they might sue the regulator over the issue.

"It is extremely disappointing that the Obama Administration continues to push approval of this dangerous and unnecessary product," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for Center for Food Safety. "The GE salmon has no socially redeeming value. It's bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment."

FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky said no final decisions had been made on labeling or on the application for approval.

"The release of these materials is not a decision on whether food from AquAdvantage Salmon requires additional labeling; nor is it a decision on the new animal drug application currently under review. It also does not provide a final food safety determination," Liscinsky said.

(Editing by Bernadette Baum)

View the original article here