Tuesday, April 29, 2014
VA Probe Exposes Scandal at Multiple Locations
This is not anything new to us veterans. This kind of issue (and other medical abuses) is prevalent throughout the country, has been ongoing for a very long time (I personally know and have for 30 years) and it's about time that the mainstream media reports it and our government investigates it. This is a national disgrace and every American should demand retribution for our veterans who have suffered at the hands of the VA system that is supposed to be taking care of those who have honorably served our country!
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Social Security becomes...FEDERAL BENEFIT CHECK
I hope that when you vote, you remember which side is constantly referring to Social Security as an entitlement!
If you get any Social Security at all in any manner, you might want to read.
Did you know this? Unfortunately most did not, and I am one of those whose Social Security funds are direct deposited to my bank, thus, I never see the checks. Once again, our beloved congressmen are playing fast and loose with vernacular. What motive did they have for changing the name of our Social Security? Im sure they have a plan, and it won’t be to our betterment.
ALERT EVERYONE YOU KNOW. THIS AFFECTS ALL OF US.*
SOCIAL SECURITY becomes FEDERAL BENEFIT CHECK
Have you noticed, the Social Security check is now referred to as a “Federal Benefit Payment”?
Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it.
The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a Federal Benefit Payment ..
This isn’t a benefit. It is earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes . If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that’s close to $180,000 Invested in Social Security . If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security( $375/month, including both your and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% Interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you’d have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!
This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month. That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month ,according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – its a fact).
And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you’re 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts. Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere.They forgot (Knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed.
And recently, they’ve told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer . But is it our fault they misused our investments?
And now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a benefit, as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. Just because they borrowed the money, doesn’t mean that our investments were a charity!
Let’s take a stand…………We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government . Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.
*Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income. *
99% of people won’t share this.
Will you?
(Author unknown)
If you get any Social Security at all in any manner, you might want to read.
Did you know this? Unfortunately most did not, and I am one of those whose Social Security funds are direct deposited to my bank, thus, I never see the checks. Once again, our beloved congressmen are playing fast and loose with vernacular. What motive did they have for changing the name of our Social Security? Im sure they have a plan, and it won’t be to our betterment.
ALERT EVERYONE YOU KNOW. THIS AFFECTS ALL OF US.*
SOCIAL SECURITY becomes FEDERAL BENEFIT CHECK
Have you noticed, the Social Security check is now referred to as a “Federal Benefit Payment”?
Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it.
The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a Federal Benefit Payment ..
This isn’t a benefit. It is earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes . If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that’s close to $180,000 Invested in Social Security . If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security( $375/month, including both your and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% Interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you’d have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!
This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month. That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month ,according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – its a fact).
And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you’re 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts. Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere.They forgot (Knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed.
And recently, they’ve told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer . But is it our fault they misused our investments?
And now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a benefit, as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. Just because they borrowed the money, doesn’t mean that our investments were a charity!
Let’s take a stand…………We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government . Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.
*Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income. *
99% of people won’t share this.
Will you?
(Author unknown)
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Rosalind Peterson Presents at 2007 UN Session on Global Warming
Think chemtrails are just the imagination of "conspiracy theory nuts"? Think that global warming is just the fault of what we little people cause with our cars and energy uses? Then listen to this and NASA's reports and see what big corporations and our governments (who are blaming US for everything!) are doing!
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Climate Engineering Weather Warfare, and the Collapse of Civilization
Friday, March 28, 2014
Anti-Gunners, Hypocrites, or BOTH?
These are both prime examples of anti-gun politicians who believe that gun control should apply to everyone else except themselves.
And Democrats wonder why responsible gun owners cringe at even small concessions to their freedoms. After all, if the lawmakers don't follow the law, why should anyone else?
When it comes down to it, it's not about being a Democrat or a Republican or a Senator. I don't care who you are or what you do. If you say you hate guns, but then you're caught carrying one or using them to make money, you ARE a hypocrite.
And responsibly armed Americans like you and me simply can't stand for it.
The last time I checked, the definition of integrity was as follows: "The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles."
And now, the definition of hypocrisy: "Behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel; dishonesty."
The reason I mention both of these words is that in many ways, they are opposites. If someone has integrity, they do what they say they'll do. If they don't...well, you get the picture.
A perfect example of this behavior came to light just this week when—you guessed it—an anti-gun politician from the Democratic Party went against his so-called "stance" on firearms to use them for his own personal gain.
The hypocrite? California Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco).
The crime? Trafficking firearms.
According to the Los Angeles Times:
"The gun charges go against Yee's stand as a gun control advocate.
In 2006, Yee was named to the Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll by the Brady Campaign for his efforts that included co-authoring a first-in-the-nation bill to require new semiautomatic handguns be equipped with ballistics identification technology known as micro-stamping.
In 2013, he stood with law enforcement officials and then-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to propose a bill that would regulate assault weapons."
Are you shaking your head yet?
This case reminded me of another situation ripe with hypocrisy involving Illinois State Senator Donne Trotter (D-Chicago), who was busted trying to bring a loaded firearm through a security checkpoint at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in late 2012. The pistol was found in Trotter's carry on, loaded with seven rounds.
Up to that point, Trotter had been an extremely vocal advocate of gun control, co-sponsoring over 30 bills in favor of tighter gun laws.
The "bad guys" come in many forms. Liars and hypocrites ARE the bad guys here. And as the "good guys," you and I must continue to strive to be honest, responsibly armed citizens. The kind who do what we say and say what we mean.
How else can we ensure that integrity will always prevail over hypocrisy?
Take Care and Stay Safe,
Tim Schmidt
Publisher - Concealed Carry Report
USCCA Founder
And Democrats wonder why responsible gun owners cringe at even small concessions to their freedoms. After all, if the lawmakers don't follow the law, why should anyone else?
When it comes down to it, it's not about being a Democrat or a Republican or a Senator. I don't care who you are or what you do. If you say you hate guns, but then you're caught carrying one or using them to make money, you ARE a hypocrite.
And responsibly armed Americans like you and me simply can't stand for it.
The last time I checked, the definition of integrity was as follows: "The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles."
And now, the definition of hypocrisy: "Behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel; dishonesty."
The reason I mention both of these words is that in many ways, they are opposites. If someone has integrity, they do what they say they'll do. If they don't...well, you get the picture.
A perfect example of this behavior came to light just this week when—you guessed it—an anti-gun politician from the Democratic Party went against his so-called "stance" on firearms to use them for his own personal gain.
The hypocrite? California Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco).
The crime? Trafficking firearms.
According to the Los Angeles Times:
"The gun charges go against Yee's stand as a gun control advocate.
In 2006, Yee was named to the Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll by the Brady Campaign for his efforts that included co-authoring a first-in-the-nation bill to require new semiautomatic handguns be equipped with ballistics identification technology known as micro-stamping.
In 2013, he stood with law enforcement officials and then-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to propose a bill that would regulate assault weapons."
Are you shaking your head yet?
This case reminded me of another situation ripe with hypocrisy involving Illinois State Senator Donne Trotter (D-Chicago), who was busted trying to bring a loaded firearm through a security checkpoint at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in late 2012. The pistol was found in Trotter's carry on, loaded with seven rounds.
Up to that point, Trotter had been an extremely vocal advocate of gun control, co-sponsoring over 30 bills in favor of tighter gun laws.
The "bad guys" come in many forms. Liars and hypocrites ARE the bad guys here. And as the "good guys," you and I must continue to strive to be honest, responsibly armed citizens. The kind who do what we say and say what we mean.
How else can we ensure that integrity will always prevail over hypocrisy?
Take Care and Stay Safe,
Tim Schmidt
Publisher - Concealed Carry Report
USCCA Founder
Sunday, March 23, 2014
ObamaCare Horror Stories Are Not Lies
Add to the story below the stories of ObamaCare being EXPENSIVE and NOT affordable (like mine) and you can see that the ONLY lies that are being told is by Obama and his crew themselves.
For instance...I went to the ObamaCare healthcare management website and gave my info to check out the available "affordable" health plans. Now, I make approximately $40,000 a year. When I put my info in, and checked out the LOWEST health plan available, it is this.
The Anthem Bronze Plan...$447.43 monthly payment with a $5,750 deductible and a maximum out of pocket expense of $6,350 (so much for the $5,750 deductible!) and a $40/10% co-pay for a regular doctor, 10% co-pay for a specialist, and 10% co-pay for GENERIC drugs.
YET...Mr. Obama, who makes 10X the amount I do yearly (on just his presidential salary, not including speaking fees, book sales, investments and other incomes!) of $400,000, on the same BRONZE plan only has to pay $400! Now, I have 2 questions...
1) How is it that Obama who makes 10X the amount I do gets a LOWER monthly fee for the same bronze plan; and
2) How is MY bronze plan considered an AFFORDABLE plan for only a $40,000 yearly salary?
It may be affordable for Mr. Obama on $400,000...but it sure isn't on Ms. Reagan's $40,000! This plan, if I bought it, would be approximately 1/7th of my monthly pay. Where Obama's plan would be only 1/83rd of his monthly presidential salary.
Now...here's my last question...
Can SOMEONE please explain to me how this ObamaCare is fair across the board and considered AFFORDABLE for us average Joes/Janes....HMMMMM????
*****************************
By BETSY McCAUGHEY
Sunday, March 23, 2014
“Lies,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls the TV ads that feature people complaining about ObamaCare. Sorry: The people in those ads are sick, but their new health policies don’t let them see the specialists or get the medications they need.
These patients aren’t liars; they’re people President Obama claimed he would help, who instead are being harmed.
They had insurance, but their plans got canceled because of the Affordable Care Act, forcing them into ObamaCare. Now they’re discovering that ObamaCare plans aren’t for sick people. They offer “free” mammograms, “free” colonoscopies and “free” contraceptives — meaning you don’t have a copay. But if you have cancer, MS or Parkinson’s, you’re in trouble: Most ObamaCare plans skimp on specialists and life-saving drugs.
Dr. Jeffrey English, a Georgia neurologist who treats patients with advanced MS, worries that such patients forced into exchange plans will deteriorate rapidly. Some plans don’t cover six out of the 10 drugs that can treat MS, including the ones most effective at staving off irreversible paralysis.
“Obamacare is a throwback to the old HMO model of the 1990s, which promised a broad package of coverage for primary-care benefits like vaccines and routine doctor visits. But to pay for these benefits, the ObamaCare plans skimp on other things, principally the number of doctors you’ll have access to and also the number of costlier branded drugs,” explains Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a practicing physician and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
It’s like a car with leather seats and Bose speakers, but a lousy engine. Another aspect of this approach: Most exchange plans exclude the academic medical centers that cancer patients look to when their local hospital runs out of answers.
Dr. Katherine Albrecht developed stage 3 breast cancer (which had spread to her lymph nodes) in 2011. Doctors at her local hospital in Nashua, N.H., told her to get her affairs in order. But her Anthem PPO health insurance allowed her to go to Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston, where she was successfully treated, and afterward to Cornell Breast Cancer Center.
Her Anthem policy was canceled late last year because it didn’t meet ObamaCare mandates such as maternity coverage. Yet ObamaCare-compliant policies in New Hampshire won’t cover care at 10 of the 26 hospitals in the state, and none outside the state — so if she’d been on ObamaCare when she got cancer, she couldn’t have gone to Boston for care. Albrecht says, “Under ObamaCare, I’d be dead.”
Recently, the President urged Organizing for Action volunteers to enroll as many people as possible in ObamaCare before the March 31 deadline, calling it “God’s work.” Really? Maybe helping the uninsured is God’s work. But not convincing people with health problems to move into plans that won’t provide the care they need to stay alive. In the private sector, that would be fraud. It takes politics to a new low.
In February 2013, the Obama administration whacked people with pre-existing conditions even harder by suspending the cap on out-of-pocket expenses under an ObamaCare policy, which was originally set to kick in Jan. 1 at $6,350 for an individual. Theodore M. Thompson, a vice president of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, said “The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health-care reform.”
Without the cap, an MS patient on Copaxone, which costs $6,000 a month, will have to spend about $1,500 to $2,000 every month for the copay on that one drug alone. That’s unaffordable for many.
Before the Affordable Care Act, nine out of every 10 Americans with pre-existing conditions had coverage. They got it through an employer-provided plan, Medicare or Medicaid without discrimination. Only the individual-policy market let insurers charge sick people more or turn them away — and even in that market most got covered. Nationwide, only 2 million to 4 million people with health problems couldn’t get coverage. That’s about 1 percent of the population — a small, fixable problem.
But ObamaCare doesn’t fix the problem, it makes it far worse. As millions lose on-the-job coverage this year or next and get pushed into ObamaCare, those with pre-existing illnesses will have the same difficulty getting care as the patients in the TV ads. It’s no lie.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York. She is author of the new book, “Beating ObamaCare: 2014.” Her website is www.BetsyMcCaughey.com.
For instance...I went to the ObamaCare healthcare management website and gave my info to check out the available "affordable" health plans. Now, I make approximately $40,000 a year. When I put my info in, and checked out the LOWEST health plan available, it is this.
The Anthem Bronze Plan...$447.43 monthly payment with a $5,750 deductible and a maximum out of pocket expense of $6,350 (so much for the $5,750 deductible!) and a $40/10% co-pay for a regular doctor, 10% co-pay for a specialist, and 10% co-pay for GENERIC drugs.
YET...Mr. Obama, who makes 10X the amount I do yearly (on just his presidential salary, not including speaking fees, book sales, investments and other incomes!) of $400,000, on the same BRONZE plan only has to pay $400! Now, I have 2 questions...
1) How is it that Obama who makes 10X the amount I do gets a LOWER monthly fee for the same bronze plan; and
2) How is MY bronze plan considered an AFFORDABLE plan for only a $40,000 yearly salary?
It may be affordable for Mr. Obama on $400,000...but it sure isn't on Ms. Reagan's $40,000! This plan, if I bought it, would be approximately 1/7th of my monthly pay. Where Obama's plan would be only 1/83rd of his monthly presidential salary.
Now...here's my last question...
Can SOMEONE please explain to me how this ObamaCare is fair across the board and considered AFFORDABLE for us average Joes/Janes....HMMMMM????
*****************************
By BETSY McCAUGHEY
Sunday, March 23, 2014
“Lies,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls the TV ads that feature people complaining about ObamaCare. Sorry: The people in those ads are sick, but their new health policies don’t let them see the specialists or get the medications they need.
These patients aren’t liars; they’re people President Obama claimed he would help, who instead are being harmed.
They had insurance, but their plans got canceled because of the Affordable Care Act, forcing them into ObamaCare. Now they’re discovering that ObamaCare plans aren’t for sick people. They offer “free” mammograms, “free” colonoscopies and “free” contraceptives — meaning you don’t have a copay. But if you have cancer, MS or Parkinson’s, you’re in trouble: Most ObamaCare plans skimp on specialists and life-saving drugs.
Dr. Jeffrey English, a Georgia neurologist who treats patients with advanced MS, worries that such patients forced into exchange plans will deteriorate rapidly. Some plans don’t cover six out of the 10 drugs that can treat MS, including the ones most effective at staving off irreversible paralysis.
“Obamacare is a throwback to the old HMO model of the 1990s, which promised a broad package of coverage for primary-care benefits like vaccines and routine doctor visits. But to pay for these benefits, the ObamaCare plans skimp on other things, principally the number of doctors you’ll have access to and also the number of costlier branded drugs,” explains Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a practicing physician and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
It’s like a car with leather seats and Bose speakers, but a lousy engine. Another aspect of this approach: Most exchange plans exclude the academic medical centers that cancer patients look to when their local hospital runs out of answers.
Dr. Katherine Albrecht developed stage 3 breast cancer (which had spread to her lymph nodes) in 2011. Doctors at her local hospital in Nashua, N.H., told her to get her affairs in order. But her Anthem PPO health insurance allowed her to go to Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston, where she was successfully treated, and afterward to Cornell Breast Cancer Center.
Her Anthem policy was canceled late last year because it didn’t meet ObamaCare mandates such as maternity coverage. Yet ObamaCare-compliant policies in New Hampshire won’t cover care at 10 of the 26 hospitals in the state, and none outside the state — so if she’d been on ObamaCare when she got cancer, she couldn’t have gone to Boston for care. Albrecht says, “Under ObamaCare, I’d be dead.”
Recently, the President urged Organizing for Action volunteers to enroll as many people as possible in ObamaCare before the March 31 deadline, calling it “God’s work.” Really? Maybe helping the uninsured is God’s work. But not convincing people with health problems to move into plans that won’t provide the care they need to stay alive. In the private sector, that would be fraud. It takes politics to a new low.
In February 2013, the Obama administration whacked people with pre-existing conditions even harder by suspending the cap on out-of-pocket expenses under an ObamaCare policy, which was originally set to kick in Jan. 1 at $6,350 for an individual. Theodore M. Thompson, a vice president of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, said “The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health-care reform.”
Without the cap, an MS patient on Copaxone, which costs $6,000 a month, will have to spend about $1,500 to $2,000 every month for the copay on that one drug alone. That’s unaffordable for many.
Before the Affordable Care Act, nine out of every 10 Americans with pre-existing conditions had coverage. They got it through an employer-provided plan, Medicare or Medicaid without discrimination. Only the individual-policy market let insurers charge sick people more or turn them away — and even in that market most got covered. Nationwide, only 2 million to 4 million people with health problems couldn’t get coverage. That’s about 1 percent of the population — a small, fixable problem.
But ObamaCare doesn’t fix the problem, it makes it far worse. As millions lose on-the-job coverage this year or next and get pushed into ObamaCare, those with pre-existing illnesses will have the same difficulty getting care as the patients in the TV ads. It’s no lie.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York. She is author of the new book, “Beating ObamaCare: 2014.” Her website is www.BetsyMcCaughey.com.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Weed...Not A Gateway Drug
In a follow-up to his CNN documentary, WEED, Dr. Sanjay Gupta spoke on Anderson Cooper 360 about the patent that the US Government holds on cannabidiol: U.S. Patent 6,630,507, “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.” This patent, commonly known as “the ’507 Patent,” defines the benefits of CBD as recognized by the US Government. KannaLife Sciences, one of our investment holdings, has been awarded an exclusive license agreement with the National Institutes of Health – Office of Technology Transfer (“NIH-OTT”) for the commercialization of this patent. From Raw Story:
“The U.S. holds a patent [on marijuana] on one hand, and on the other hand, same government says it has no medical applications,” Gupta told Cooper. “Journalists are trained to hate hypocrisy. This is hypocrisy. I’ve never seen it quite like this.”
The existence of this patent—filed over a decade ago—means that the US Government is at least nominally aware of the potential health benefits of CBD.
“The U.S. holds a patent [on marijuana] on one hand, and on the other hand, same government says it has no medical applications,” Gupta told Cooper. “Journalists are trained to hate hypocrisy. This is hypocrisy. I’ve never seen it quite like this.”
The existence of this patent—filed over a decade ago—means that the US Government is at least nominally aware of the potential health benefits of CBD.
Friday, March 14, 2014
HR 1523 - Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2013
Write your US Reps and urge the swift enactment of H.R. 1523...pronto! Better yet, let's decriminalize it completely...regulate it (like we do tobacco) and take the sales tax earned from it and relieve the property tax burden on homeowners! Pretty good concept I think!!
H.R.1523 -- Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2013 (Introduced in House - IH)
HR 1523 IH
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1523
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for a new rule regarding the application of the Act to marihuana, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 12, 2013
Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Mr. COHEN, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. POLIS, Mr. AMASH, and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A BILL
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for a new rule regarding the application of the Act to marihuana, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2013'.
SEC. 2. RULE REGARDING APPLICATION TO MARIHUANA.
Part G of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 710. RULE REGARDING APPLICATION TO MARIHUANA.
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.'.
********************************************************************************
On November 13, 2013, NAACP passes resolution on HR 1523
(Baltimore, MD)— During the October 2013 NAACP Board of Directors meeting, board members passed a resolution that supports allowing states to decrease penalties for low-level marijuana possession and supports prohibiting federal enforcement of marijuana laws in states which have lesser penalties.
The bipartisan legislation in question, H.R. 1523, prohibits the federal enforcement of marijuana laws in states which have decreased penalties, allowed medical use, or legalized recreational use; including, Washington, Colorado, California, and the District of Columbia. The state level law changes will impact communities of color the most.
Annually, more than 700,000 people are arrested in the United States for possession of marijuana. Although studies show that whites and African Americans use and sell marijuana at relatively the same rates, African Americans are almost four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession—30 times more likely in some jurisdictions.
The following is a full text copy of the resolution:
NAACP SUPPORTS ALLOWING STATES TO DECREASE PENALTIES FOR LOW-LEVEL DRUG POSSESSION
WHEREAS, as a result of the “War on Drugs” and mandatory minimum sentences imposed largely at the federal level, the prison population has exploded in the past few decades; and
WHEREAS, one crucial result of these misguided and misplaced policies has been the disproportionate over-confinement of racial and ethnic minorities: more than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities; and
WHEREAS, two-thirds of all persons in prison today for drug offenses are people of color; and
WHEREAS, more than 700,000 people annually are arrested in the United States for the possession of marijuana; and
WHEREAS, even though numerous studies demonstrate that whites and African Americans use and sell marijuana at relatively the same rates, studies also demonstrate that African Americans are, on average, almost 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession, and in some jurisdictions Blacks are 30 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites; and
WHEREAS, there are also extreme economic consequences to the present day enforcement of marijuana laws; nationally, states spent an estimated $3.61 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws in 2010 alone; money that could be spent on education, job training, and other valuable services; and
WHEREAS, several states throughout the U.S. have departed from current federal law to develop more well-tailored and effective guidelines and sentencing ranges for small, low-level marijuana use which are moderating some of the more extreme federal policies and their repercussions; and
WHEREAS, these state laws are at times at odds with federal laws; and
WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced in the 113th Congress, H.R. 1523, with strong bipartisan support, which would prohibit the federal enforcement of marijuana laws in states which have lesser penalties.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP supports H.R. 1523 and encourages its swift enactment; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the NAACP Washington Bureau shall contact Members of the Congress and urge the swift enactment of H.R. 1523.
H.R.1523 -- Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2013 (Introduced in House - IH)
HR 1523 IH
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1523
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for a new rule regarding the application of the Act to marihuana, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 12, 2013
Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Mr. COHEN, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. POLIS, Mr. AMASH, and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A BILL
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for a new rule regarding the application of the Act to marihuana, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2013'.
SEC. 2. RULE REGARDING APPLICATION TO MARIHUANA.
Part G of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 710. RULE REGARDING APPLICATION TO MARIHUANA.
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.'.
********************************************************************************
On November 13, 2013, NAACP passes resolution on HR 1523
(Baltimore, MD)— During the October 2013 NAACP Board of Directors meeting, board members passed a resolution that supports allowing states to decrease penalties for low-level marijuana possession and supports prohibiting federal enforcement of marijuana laws in states which have lesser penalties.
The bipartisan legislation in question, H.R. 1523, prohibits the federal enforcement of marijuana laws in states which have decreased penalties, allowed medical use, or legalized recreational use; including, Washington, Colorado, California, and the District of Columbia. The state level law changes will impact communities of color the most.
Annually, more than 700,000 people are arrested in the United States for possession of marijuana. Although studies show that whites and African Americans use and sell marijuana at relatively the same rates, African Americans are almost four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession—30 times more likely in some jurisdictions.
The following is a full text copy of the resolution:
NAACP SUPPORTS ALLOWING STATES TO DECREASE PENALTIES FOR LOW-LEVEL DRUG POSSESSION
WHEREAS, as a result of the “War on Drugs” and mandatory minimum sentences imposed largely at the federal level, the prison population has exploded in the past few decades; and
WHEREAS, one crucial result of these misguided and misplaced policies has been the disproportionate over-confinement of racial and ethnic minorities: more than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities; and
WHEREAS, two-thirds of all persons in prison today for drug offenses are people of color; and
WHEREAS, more than 700,000 people annually are arrested in the United States for the possession of marijuana; and
WHEREAS, even though numerous studies demonstrate that whites and African Americans use and sell marijuana at relatively the same rates, studies also demonstrate that African Americans are, on average, almost 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession, and in some jurisdictions Blacks are 30 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites; and
WHEREAS, there are also extreme economic consequences to the present day enforcement of marijuana laws; nationally, states spent an estimated $3.61 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws in 2010 alone; money that could be spent on education, job training, and other valuable services; and
WHEREAS, several states throughout the U.S. have departed from current federal law to develop more well-tailored and effective guidelines and sentencing ranges for small, low-level marijuana use which are moderating some of the more extreme federal policies and their repercussions; and
WHEREAS, these state laws are at times at odds with federal laws; and
WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced in the 113th Congress, H.R. 1523, with strong bipartisan support, which would prohibit the federal enforcement of marijuana laws in states which have lesser penalties.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP supports H.R. 1523 and encourages its swift enactment; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the NAACP Washington Bureau shall contact Members of the Congress and urge the swift enactment of H.R. 1523.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
A System In Crisis
Is it any wonder why the people of Maine do not trust their representatives? When examples of wrong doing by Schneider was being brought forth, committee members bring up reasons that have nothing to do with what is being brought forth to shut them up. Saying that they are bringing these reasons before that committee for answers or fixing the problem is NOT why they were stating the reasons. They were stating the reasons to show the ineptness and criminality of the actions/in-actions of the nominee for judge while he was a legislator and AG! This proves his inability to follow his oath to the constitution and his duties in positions beforehand...thus showing a pattern of ineptness and willful derelict of duty. This is VERY pertinent to the matter at hand which is showing why he should not be nominated to sit on the bench where he'd have peoples lives, freedoms and property in his hands. If he was unwilling and or unable to address them while in a lesser position that dictates he must do so before, then what makes this committee think he'll do so in a more important role as judge? This goes to show you that these committee members are just as bad as the nominee before them and have no intention to follow their oaths of office either...and the proof of that is in the rubber stamping of nominating Schneider to the bench without so much as even taking a break to look at the information given them at the hearing BEFORE going on to vote unanimously for his nomination! UNBELIEVABLE!
)
Friday, March 7, 2014
The Amazing Health Benefits of Raw Cannabis (Marijuana)
A natural way to beat cancer...without putting dangerous toxins into you and without killing good cells with the bad! Who wouldn't want that?
Molecular Biologist Explains How THC Completely Kills Cancer Cells
The absolute best medicine given to us by mother nature! Only in HEATING it does any "tripping" compound exist. Raw...it's just another vegetable ...but one that PREVENTS and CURES many chronic diseases we experience today.
The Amazing Health Benefits of Juicing Raw Cannabis (Marijuana) Leaves
Government Confirms And Reports That Marijuana Prevents Or Cures Certain Cancers
The Amazing Health Benefits of Juicing Raw Cannabis (Marijuana) Leaves
So, if the govenrnent says that there's no medicinal benefits from marijuana...then why have they PATENTED the cannabinoids from this plant recognizing them for medicinal purposes? It's because the government wants to profit from them and control us as to how much, when and how we use it. They don't want us to be self sufficient...they want us dependant on them...and PAY THEM for that privilege!
Cannabidiol (CBD) is a naturally occurring constituent/cannabinoid of the hemp plant and according to US government patent #6,630,507 it supports the nutritional health of aging bodies. This patent recognizes cannabidiol's ability as an anti-epileptic (thwarts seizures), its anxiolytic effect (calming), its neuroprotectant properties (nervous system/brain protection), its ability to protect against cellular damage, its ability to protect brains from ischemic damage (helping blood and oxygen flow), the lack of toxicity or serious side effects in large acute doses, its ability to lower intraocular pressure in the treatment of glaucoma, and its powerful antioxidant activity which can be used in the prophylaxis and treatment of oxidation associated diseases (conditions generally thought to be correlated with oxidative stress are cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and autism). *Source: US government Patent #6,630,507: "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants"
Cannabidiol (CBD) is a naturally occurring constituent/cannabinoid of the hemp plant and according to US government patent #6,630,507 it supports the nutritional health of aging bodies. This patent recognizes cannabidiol's ability as an anti-epileptic (thwarts seizures), its anxiolytic effect (calming), its neuroprotectant properties (nervous system/brain protection), its ability to protect against cellular damage, its ability to protect brains from ischemic damage (helping blood and oxygen flow), the lack of toxicity or serious side effects in large acute doses, its ability to lower intraocular pressure in the treatment of glaucoma, and its powerful antioxidant activity which can be used in the prophylaxis and treatment of oxidation associated diseases (conditions generally thought to be correlated with oxidative stress are cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and autism). *Source: US government Patent #6,630,507: "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants"
Government Confirms And Reports That Marijuana Prevents Or Cures Certain Cancers
Addressing the White House website statement that medical marijuana should remain criminally illegal under federal law, Pappas said that “with every drug, the doctor must consider the benefits versus any possible side effects. In its 3000-plus year history of medicinal use, there has never been a known, confirmed death caused by overdose of marijuana. To suggest that prescription drugs known to have severe negative side effects are alright and that marijuana can only be used for cancer or AIDS is nonsensical. It demonstrates how the Federal government’s decision to usurp state sovereignty is harming people because burdening citizens with federal criminal records based on medical marijuana provided for under state law is simply wrong. To continue outlawing the use of a drug shown to have life-saving, anti-cancer benefits that has been used safely as a medication for thousands of years is irresponsible.”
RESOURCES:
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/03/12/530022/10024825/en/Federal-Government-Reports-Marijuana-Effective-in-Combatting-Certain-Cancers-Reports-ADSI.html?print=1
http://www.bluebird-botanicals.com/Cannabidiol__CBD__oil.php
http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/06/in-case-you-missed-it-government-confirms-and-reports-that-marijuana-prevents-or-cures-certain-cancers.html
RESOURCES:
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/03/12/530022/10024825/en/Federal-Government-Reports-Marijuana-Effective-in-Combatting-Certain-Cancers-Reports-ADSI.html?print=1
http://www.bluebird-botanicals.com/Cannabidiol__CBD__oil.php
http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/06/in-case-you-missed-it-government-confirms-and-reports-that-marijuana-prevents-or-cures-certain-cancers.html
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Friday, February 21, 2014
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)