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
Friday, March 28, 2014
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
Hemp Is NOT Marijuana And Cannot Get You High
Ok people, here's the story about hemp.
First...the whole reason HEMP was declared illegal because of one reason only... corporate greed. Yup...here is the proof.
During Hoover’s presidency, Andrew Mellon became Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont’s primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. This then led these men to take an obscure Mexican slang word: ‘marijuana’ and push it into the consciousness of America. The reason why they changed the name was because everyone knew of hemp and how amazing it was for the world. They would never be able to get away with banning hemp, so they used a name they knew no one would care about.
Not long after this plan was set in place, the media began a blitz of ‘yellow journalism’ in the late 1920s and 1930s. Yellow journalism is essentially journalism where stories with catchy headlines are put into the mainstream media to get attention, yet these stories are not well researched or backed up. They are often used simply to create public opinion. Many newspapers were pumping stories emphasizing the horrors and dangers of marijuana. The “menace” of marihuana made headlines everywhere. Readers learned that it was responsible for everything from car accidents to losing morality and it wasn’t long before public opinion started to shape.
Next came several films like ‘Reefer Madness’ (1936), ‘Marijuana: Assassin of Youth’ (1935) and ‘Marijuana: The Devil’s Weed’ (1936) which were all propaganda films designed by these industrialists to create an enemy out of marijuana. Reefer Madness was possibly the most interesting of the films as it depicted a man going crazy from smoking marijuana and then murdering his family with an ax. With all of these films, the goal was to gain public support so that anti-marijuana laws could be passed without objection.
Have a look at the following regarding marijuana from ‘The Burning Question’ aka Reefer Madness:
A violent narcotic
Acts of shocking violence
Incurable insanity
Soul-destroying effects
Under the influence of the drug he killed his entire family with an ax
More vicious, more deadly even than these soul-destroying drugs (heroin, cocaine) is the menace of marijuana!
Unlike most films with a simple ending, Reefer Madness ended with bold words on the screen: TELL YOUR CHILDREN.
In the 1930s, things were different than today. The population did not question things very much. They did not have tools like the Internet to quickly spread information and learn about things that were happening. Most built their opinions and beliefs off of the news via print or the radio. As a result and what was instructed by mainstream news, many people did tell their children about marihuana and thus shaping a strong public opinion about it.
On April 14, 1937, the Prohibitive Marijuana Tax Law or the bill that outlawed hemp was directly brought to the House Ways and Means Committee. Simply put, this committee is the only one that could introduce a bill to the House floor without it being debated by other committees. At the time, the Chairman of the Ways and Means was Robert Doughton who was a Dupont supporter. With vested interest, he insured that the bill would pass Congress.
In an attempt to stop the bill from being passed, Dr. James Woodward, a physician and attorney, attempted to testify on behalf of the American Medical Association. He mentioned that the reason the AMA had not denounced the Marijuana Tax Law sooner was that the Association had just discovered that marijuana was hemp. Or at least a strain of it. Hemp and Marijuana are both varieties of Cannabis sativa, but this distinction was purposely not made well known to the public. Since the law was not so much focused on banning one or the other, both found their way into the ban. The AMA recognized cannabis/marijuana as a medicine found in numerous healing products sold and used for quite some time. The AMA like many other’s did not realize that the deadly menace they had been reading about in the media was in fact hemp.
In September of 1937, hemp prohibition began. Arguably the most useful plant known to man has become illegal to grow and use both in its non THC strain and THC strain called marijuana. To this day, this plant is still illegal to grow in the United States.
Second...hemp is technically from the same species of plant that psychoactive marijuana comes from. However, it is from a different variety, or subspecies that contains many important differences. The term 'Hemp' commonly refers to the industrial/commercial use of the cannabis stalk and seed for textiles, foods, papers, body care products, detergents, plastics and building materials. The term 'marijuana' refers to the medicinal, recreational or spiritual use involving the smoking of cannabis flowers. Industrial hemp contains only about 0.3% - 1.5% THC (Tetrahydrocannabinoids, the intoxicating ingredients that make you high) while marijuana contains about 5% - 10% or more THC. To be clear, even the plant we refer to has Marijuana is actually hemp. Most accurately, hemp that is composed of less than .3% THC is considered non-remedial hemp. Hemp that contains more than .3% THC is considered remedial hemp. This is the type many call Marijuana. Right off the top, Hemp looks very much like marijuana as it technically is the same plant. But unlike maryjane, it does not contain anywhere near the amount of THC needed for someone to get high if they tried to smoke it. Funny thing is, in the United States, Hemp is just as illegal to grow as Marijuana is. How can this be? The plant doesn’t even provide THC to get high and yet it’s still illegal? Yes.
Industrial hemp has low THC levels compared to marijuana specifically cultivated for personal psychoactive use. Whereas marijuana that can be smoked usually contains between five and ten percent THC, industrial hemp contains about one-tenth of that. In order to get a psychoactive effect, one would need to smoke ten or twelve hemp cigarettes over a very short period of time.
The reason for the low THC content in hemp is that most THC is formed in resin glands on the buds and flowers of the female cannabis plant. Industrial hemp is not cultivated to produce buds, and therefore lacks the primary component that forms the marijuana high. Furthermore, industrial hemp has higher concentrations of a chemical called Cannabidiol (CBD) that has a negative effect on THC and lessens its psychoactive effects when smoked in conjunction.
Compared to cannabis sativa indica, cannabis sativa sativa (industrial hemp variety) has a much stronger fiber. This fiber can be used in anything from rope and blankets to paper. Marijuana fiber has a low tensile strength and will break or shred easily, making it a poor fibrous plant when compared to industrial hemp.
Industrial hemp also grows differently than THC-containing cannabis. Hemp is typically grown up, not out, because the focus is not on producing buds but on producing length of stalk. In this way, hemp is a very similar crop to bamboo. The stalk contains the fiber and hard, woody core material that can be used for a variety of purposes, even carpentry. Generally, THC-producing marijuana plants are grown to an average of five feet in height. Industrial hemp on the other hand is grown to a height of ten to fifteen feet before harvest. Also, it is fairly difficult to grow concealed marijuana within industrial hemp crops as the DEA alleges. Since industrial hemp is grown so close together and is generally a very narrow, vertical growth crop, any THC-producing marijuana would stick out like a sore thumb. Its wide growth would require a large amount of space to itself in order to get adequate sunlight from beyond the tops of the competing industrial hemp plants.
The two also differ in the areas that they can be effectively grown. THC-producing Marijuana must be grown in generally warm and humid environments in order to produce the desired quantity and quality of THC-containing buds. However, since industrial hemp does not contain these buds, and the hardy parts of the plant are the more desired, it can be grown in a wider range of areas. Generally, industrial hemp grows best on fields that provide high yields for corn crops, which includes most of the Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast United States. Furthermore, since industrial hemp can use male plants as well as female plants (since the object is not THC production), higher crop yields can result.
Hemp also has little potential to produce high-content THC when pollinated. As long as industrial hemp plants are pollinated by members of their own crop, then the genetics will remain similar with low levels of THC.
One would have to place several marijuana plants in close vicinity in over several generations order to alter the genetics substantially of the offspring.
Since there are so many differences between industrial hemp and high-THC marijuana, it seems to make sense that it would be a fostered, rather than demonized crop. Although technically hemp is not illegal to grow, it requires obtaining a special permit from the DEA. These permits are rarely given out and require that the crop be surrounded by security measures such as fences, razor wire, security guards, or dogs. For a crop that has little-to-no potential to get people high, the current attitude is both irresponsible and draconian.
Industrial hemp could transform the economy of the United States in a positive and beneficial way, and therefore should be exploited to its full potential. And since the big corporations who make money on things that harm the earth like plastics and the steel, paper, wood (just to mention a few) companies would lose billions of dollars if hemp was widely used, it stays illegal or very hard to be grown feasibly with all the federal regulations.
Hemp used to be used for many things: clothes, cars, plastics, building materials, rope, paper, linens, food, medicine and so on. In fact, it used to be mandatory in the United States for farmers to grow hemp if they had the land. In modern times hemp is used for industrial purposes including paper, textiles, clothing, biodegradable plastics, construction (as with Hempcrete and insulation), body products, health food and bio-fuel. The world-leading producer of hemp is China, with smaller production in Europe, Chile and North Korea. Over thirty countries produce industrial hemp, including Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine.
In America:
1. 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc., were made from hemp until the 1820s, with the introduction of the cotton gin. All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s.
2. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America, and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow’s export to England.
3. Henry Ford’s first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the car itself was constructed from hemp! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, ‘grown from the soil,’ had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel. (Popular Mechanics, 1941.)
4. Refusing to grow hemp in America during the 17th and 18th centuries was against the law! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769. You could even pay taxes with hemp in America from 1631 until the early 1800s!! (LA Times. Aug. 12, 1981.)
5. Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935. (Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before the U.S.Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.)
6. For thousands of years, 90% of all ships’ sails and rope were made from hemp. The word ‘canvas’ comes from the Middle English word “canevas” which comes from the Latin word cannabis. (Webster’s New World Dictionary.)
7. In 1938, hemp was called ‘Billion Dollar Crop.’ It was the first time a cash crop had a business potential to exceed a billion dollars. (Popular Mechanics, Feb. 1938.)
8. The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons. Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th century.
9. In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs. (U.S. Department of Agriculture Archives.)
10. Oldest known records of hemp farming go back 5000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt.
So, why don't we here in America join the rest of the world, including our northern neighbor Canada, and just tell the feds...screw you...we're going green and saving our planet by using a natural, biodegradable plant that can NOT get people high and use it for most everything in our daily lives? Because most Americans are uneducated about the TRUE story of HEMP! EDUCATE YOURSELVES AND SCREW WHAT THE RICH CORPORATIONS WANT! Tell the government, WE THE PEOPLE WANT OUR HEMP BACK!!!
Resources:
http://hempethics.weebly.com/industrial-hemp-vs-cannabis.html
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/10/16/10-eye-opening-facts-about-hemp/
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/12/05/how-hemp-became-illegal-the-marijuana-link/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
First...the whole reason HEMP was declared illegal because of one reason only... corporate greed. Yup...here is the proof.
During Hoover’s presidency, Andrew Mellon became Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont’s primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. This then led these men to take an obscure Mexican slang word: ‘marijuana’ and push it into the consciousness of America. The reason why they changed the name was because everyone knew of hemp and how amazing it was for the world. They would never be able to get away with banning hemp, so they used a name they knew no one would care about.
Not long after this plan was set in place, the media began a blitz of ‘yellow journalism’ in the late 1920s and 1930s. Yellow journalism is essentially journalism where stories with catchy headlines are put into the mainstream media to get attention, yet these stories are not well researched or backed up. They are often used simply to create public opinion. Many newspapers were pumping stories emphasizing the horrors and dangers of marijuana. The “menace” of marihuana made headlines everywhere. Readers learned that it was responsible for everything from car accidents to losing morality and it wasn’t long before public opinion started to shape.
Next came several films like ‘Reefer Madness’ (1936), ‘Marijuana: Assassin of Youth’ (1935) and ‘Marijuana: The Devil’s Weed’ (1936) which were all propaganda films designed by these industrialists to create an enemy out of marijuana. Reefer Madness was possibly the most interesting of the films as it depicted a man going crazy from smoking marijuana and then murdering his family with an ax. With all of these films, the goal was to gain public support so that anti-marijuana laws could be passed without objection.
Have a look at the following regarding marijuana from ‘The Burning Question’ aka Reefer Madness:
A violent narcotic
Acts of shocking violence
Incurable insanity
Soul-destroying effects
Under the influence of the drug he killed his entire family with an ax
More vicious, more deadly even than these soul-destroying drugs (heroin, cocaine) is the menace of marijuana!
Unlike most films with a simple ending, Reefer Madness ended with bold words on the screen: TELL YOUR CHILDREN.
In the 1930s, things were different than today. The population did not question things very much. They did not have tools like the Internet to quickly spread information and learn about things that were happening. Most built their opinions and beliefs off of the news via print or the radio. As a result and what was instructed by mainstream news, many people did tell their children about marihuana and thus shaping a strong public opinion about it.
On April 14, 1937, the Prohibitive Marijuana Tax Law or the bill that outlawed hemp was directly brought to the House Ways and Means Committee. Simply put, this committee is the only one that could introduce a bill to the House floor without it being debated by other committees. At the time, the Chairman of the Ways and Means was Robert Doughton who was a Dupont supporter. With vested interest, he insured that the bill would pass Congress.
In an attempt to stop the bill from being passed, Dr. James Woodward, a physician and attorney, attempted to testify on behalf of the American Medical Association. He mentioned that the reason the AMA had not denounced the Marijuana Tax Law sooner was that the Association had just discovered that marijuana was hemp. Or at least a strain of it. Hemp and Marijuana are both varieties of Cannabis sativa, but this distinction was purposely not made well known to the public. Since the law was not so much focused on banning one or the other, both found their way into the ban. The AMA recognized cannabis/marijuana as a medicine found in numerous healing products sold and used for quite some time. The AMA like many other’s did not realize that the deadly menace they had been reading about in the media was in fact hemp.
In September of 1937, hemp prohibition began. Arguably the most useful plant known to man has become illegal to grow and use both in its non THC strain and THC strain called marijuana. To this day, this plant is still illegal to grow in the United States.
Second...hemp is technically from the same species of plant that psychoactive marijuana comes from. However, it is from a different variety, or subspecies that contains many important differences. The term 'Hemp' commonly refers to the industrial/commercial use of the cannabis stalk and seed for textiles, foods, papers, body care products, detergents, plastics and building materials. The term 'marijuana' refers to the medicinal, recreational or spiritual use involving the smoking of cannabis flowers. Industrial hemp contains only about 0.3% - 1.5% THC (Tetrahydrocannabinoids, the intoxicating ingredients that make you high) while marijuana contains about 5% - 10% or more THC. To be clear, even the plant we refer to has Marijuana is actually hemp. Most accurately, hemp that is composed of less than .3% THC is considered non-remedial hemp. Hemp that contains more than .3% THC is considered remedial hemp. This is the type many call Marijuana. Right off the top, Hemp looks very much like marijuana as it technically is the same plant. But unlike maryjane, it does not contain anywhere near the amount of THC needed for someone to get high if they tried to smoke it. Funny thing is, in the United States, Hemp is just as illegal to grow as Marijuana is. How can this be? The plant doesn’t even provide THC to get high and yet it’s still illegal? Yes.
Industrial hemp has low THC levels compared to marijuana specifically cultivated for personal psychoactive use. Whereas marijuana that can be smoked usually contains between five and ten percent THC, industrial hemp contains about one-tenth of that. In order to get a psychoactive effect, one would need to smoke ten or twelve hemp cigarettes over a very short period of time.
The reason for the low THC content in hemp is that most THC is formed in resin glands on the buds and flowers of the female cannabis plant. Industrial hemp is not cultivated to produce buds, and therefore lacks the primary component that forms the marijuana high. Furthermore, industrial hemp has higher concentrations of a chemical called Cannabidiol (CBD) that has a negative effect on THC and lessens its psychoactive effects when smoked in conjunction.
Compared to cannabis sativa indica, cannabis sativa sativa (industrial hemp variety) has a much stronger fiber. This fiber can be used in anything from rope and blankets to paper. Marijuana fiber has a low tensile strength and will break or shred easily, making it a poor fibrous plant when compared to industrial hemp.
Industrial hemp also grows differently than THC-containing cannabis. Hemp is typically grown up, not out, because the focus is not on producing buds but on producing length of stalk. In this way, hemp is a very similar crop to bamboo. The stalk contains the fiber and hard, woody core material that can be used for a variety of purposes, even carpentry. Generally, THC-producing marijuana plants are grown to an average of five feet in height. Industrial hemp on the other hand is grown to a height of ten to fifteen feet before harvest. Also, it is fairly difficult to grow concealed marijuana within industrial hemp crops as the DEA alleges. Since industrial hemp is grown so close together and is generally a very narrow, vertical growth crop, any THC-producing marijuana would stick out like a sore thumb. Its wide growth would require a large amount of space to itself in order to get adequate sunlight from beyond the tops of the competing industrial hemp plants.
The two also differ in the areas that they can be effectively grown. THC-producing Marijuana must be grown in generally warm and humid environments in order to produce the desired quantity and quality of THC-containing buds. However, since industrial hemp does not contain these buds, and the hardy parts of the plant are the more desired, it can be grown in a wider range of areas. Generally, industrial hemp grows best on fields that provide high yields for corn crops, which includes most of the Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast United States. Furthermore, since industrial hemp can use male plants as well as female plants (since the object is not THC production), higher crop yields can result.
Hemp also has little potential to produce high-content THC when pollinated. As long as industrial hemp plants are pollinated by members of their own crop, then the genetics will remain similar with low levels of THC.
One would have to place several marijuana plants in close vicinity in over several generations order to alter the genetics substantially of the offspring.
Since there are so many differences between industrial hemp and high-THC marijuana, it seems to make sense that it would be a fostered, rather than demonized crop. Although technically hemp is not illegal to grow, it requires obtaining a special permit from the DEA. These permits are rarely given out and require that the crop be surrounded by security measures such as fences, razor wire, security guards, or dogs. For a crop that has little-to-no potential to get people high, the current attitude is both irresponsible and draconian.
Industrial hemp could transform the economy of the United States in a positive and beneficial way, and therefore should be exploited to its full potential. And since the big corporations who make money on things that harm the earth like plastics and the steel, paper, wood (just to mention a few) companies would lose billions of dollars if hemp was widely used, it stays illegal or very hard to be grown feasibly with all the federal regulations.
Hemp used to be used for many things: clothes, cars, plastics, building materials, rope, paper, linens, food, medicine and so on. In fact, it used to be mandatory in the United States for farmers to grow hemp if they had the land. In modern times hemp is used for industrial purposes including paper, textiles, clothing, biodegradable plastics, construction (as with Hempcrete and insulation), body products, health food and bio-fuel. The world-leading producer of hemp is China, with smaller production in Europe, Chile and North Korea. Over thirty countries produce industrial hemp, including Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine.
In America:
1. 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc., were made from hemp until the 1820s, with the introduction of the cotton gin. All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s.
2. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America, and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow’s export to England.
3. Henry Ford’s first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the car itself was constructed from hemp! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, ‘grown from the soil,’ had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel. (Popular Mechanics, 1941.)
4. Refusing to grow hemp in America during the 17th and 18th centuries was against the law! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769. You could even pay taxes with hemp in America from 1631 until the early 1800s!! (LA Times. Aug. 12, 1981.)
5. Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935. (Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before the U.S.Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.)
6. For thousands of years, 90% of all ships’ sails and rope were made from hemp. The word ‘canvas’ comes from the Middle English word “canevas” which comes from the Latin word cannabis. (Webster’s New World Dictionary.)
7. In 1938, hemp was called ‘Billion Dollar Crop.’ It was the first time a cash crop had a business potential to exceed a billion dollars. (Popular Mechanics, Feb. 1938.)
8. The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons. Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th century.
9. In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs. (U.S. Department of Agriculture Archives.)
10. Oldest known records of hemp farming go back 5000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt.
So, why don't we here in America join the rest of the world, including our northern neighbor Canada, and just tell the feds...screw you...we're going green and saving our planet by using a natural, biodegradable plant that can NOT get people high and use it for most everything in our daily lives? Because most Americans are uneducated about the TRUE story of HEMP! EDUCATE YOURSELVES AND SCREW WHAT THE RICH CORPORATIONS WANT! Tell the government, WE THE PEOPLE WANT OUR HEMP BACK!!!
Resources:
http://hempethics.weebly.com/industrial-hemp-vs-cannabis.html
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/10/16/10-eye-opening-facts-about-hemp/
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/12/05/how-hemp-became-illegal-the-marijuana-link/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Neighbor Helping Neighbor
There still are some real good people in LOCAL businesses and I want to point them out. So today, I'm reporting GOOD news!
1) My car blew a spark plug last September. My ex son-in-law replaced it but my car still wouldn't start. I had Llyod's Auto Sales here in Sanford come get it last Wednesday. I also had an accident with this car 2 winters ago and it needed some body work. The estimate for everything was approximately $1500.00 (believe me, that's quite reasonable with everything that needed work on!) and Llyod is working with me on installments. Now, is does help that I bought this car from him and he knows my payment history. But even so, he still didn't have to work with me on this. So, I highly recommend Llyod's Auto Sales if you want a fair shake!
Llyod's Auto Sales 207-324-2437
2) Tyler at Premier Rentals is a fantastic guy! My washing machine broke down and I had to get a new one, fast! I've done business with Premiere and once again, Tyler knows of my payment history with them so when I needed them, they were there and gave me a great deal and I had my new washer 2 days later! I also had a laptop that went dead on me. Tyler works on computers and he took mine and has saved my data that I thought I had lost! Plus, he just might be able to save my hard drive too! And, he's very reasonable with his prices! Want good prices and good service? Than Premier Rentals is the place to go!
Premier Rentals 207-850-4200
3) There's a great local fix-it man in my neighborhood, John Pontes. Now, he's a great guy who likes to help his local community and does a jack-of-all trades kind of work and charges very little for his services because he knows how times are tough. And even though he only does jobs in his own local community, I wanted to praise him too and let people know that if they live in my community, he's available. And if you don't...I encourage you to look for a handy man in yours.
So look for these kinds of people and businesses in YOUR local vicinity, they are there and you help them too by giving them much needed business during hard times as well! Your local community...neighbor helping neighbor! Jut as it should be!
1) My car blew a spark plug last September. My ex son-in-law replaced it but my car still wouldn't start. I had Llyod's Auto Sales here in Sanford come get it last Wednesday. I also had an accident with this car 2 winters ago and it needed some body work. The estimate for everything was approximately $1500.00 (believe me, that's quite reasonable with everything that needed work on!) and Llyod is working with me on installments. Now, is does help that I bought this car from him and he knows my payment history. But even so, he still didn't have to work with me on this. So, I highly recommend Llyod's Auto Sales if you want a fair shake!
Llyod's Auto Sales 207-324-2437
2) Tyler at Premier Rentals is a fantastic guy! My washing machine broke down and I had to get a new one, fast! I've done business with Premiere and once again, Tyler knows of my payment history with them so when I needed them, they were there and gave me a great deal and I had my new washer 2 days later! I also had a laptop that went dead on me. Tyler works on computers and he took mine and has saved my data that I thought I had lost! Plus, he just might be able to save my hard drive too! And, he's very reasonable with his prices! Want good prices and good service? Than Premier Rentals is the place to go!
Premier Rentals 207-850-4200
3) There's a great local fix-it man in my neighborhood, John Pontes. Now, he's a great guy who likes to help his local community and does a jack-of-all trades kind of work and charges very little for his services because he knows how times are tough. And even though he only does jobs in his own local community, I wanted to praise him too and let people know that if they live in my community, he's available. And if you don't...I encourage you to look for a handy man in yours.
So look for these kinds of people and businesses in YOUR local vicinity, they are there and you help them too by giving them much needed business during hard times as well! Your local community...neighbor helping neighbor! Jut as it should be!
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Feds Cannot Require A State To Carry Out Federal Acts
http://personalliberty.com/2014/01/28/feds-cannot-require-a-state-to-carry-out-federal-acts/
January 28, 2014 by Michael Boldin
With a number of States now considering bills to thwart the implementation of Obamacare or legislation to turn off resources like water and power to National Security Agency facilities around the country, a number of political commentators are weighing in.
For example, Gail Kerr over at The Tennessean wrote about State Senator Mae Beavers’ bill to block Obamacare: “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act is constitutional. State laws cannot trump federal laws.”
Jacob Gershman at the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog suggested the same before having to retract shortly after.
The knee-jerk reaction of many “experts” is to claim that “Federal laws trump State laws when they conflict” whenever they write about a bill designed to take action against a Federal act.
Many of them don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
The Legislation
The bills in question are not coming into “conflict” with Federal laws at all; they seek to direct State agents and employees to stop participating in the enforcement of various Federal acts.
In Washington State, for example, House Bill 2272 would ban all public employees from participating in any actions that aid the NSA in its mass surveillance programs. While this would immediately ban the use of warrantless data in court proceedings in the States, it has even more significant impact in a State like Washington, because there is a physical NSA facility there that relies on third parties, such as State agencies, to provide electricity or water to stay operational.
A similar bill has been introduced in Tennessee, where the NSA’s encryption-breaking facility at Oak Ridge resides. And another is expected to be introduced soon in Utah, where the new NSA data center requires as much as 1.7 million gallons of water every day to cool the supercomputers. That water is being supplied by the state of Utah.
In a rallying cry that sounds surprisingly simple, supporters know that no water equals no NSA data center.
Back in Tennessee, Senate Bill 1888 states, in part, “No state entity shall establish or administer, or assist in establishing or administering, any specific regulatory scheme to operate the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, or any subsequent federal amendment to such act, in this state.”
Similar bills have been introduced in Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma and elsewhere.
Analyzing such state bills, FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano considered them an effective strategy against the Affordable Care Act. “If enough states do this, it will gut Obamacare because the federal government doesn’t have the resources… to go into each of the states if they start refusing,” he said.
In Florida yesterday, a bill was introduced in the State House to ban the entire State from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of Federal gun control measures — all of them — past, present or future.
Napolitano last year urged States to do just this, suggesting that the Federal government simply does not have the manpower to carry out these measures. Such a bill in a single State, he said, would make “federal gun laws nearly impossible to enforce.”
The Legal Doctrine
Is this legal?
In short, absolutely. The State laws do not come into conflict with Federal laws in any legal sense.
All of these proposals are based on the widely accepted legal principle known as the “anti-commandeering doctrine.”
This means the Federal government cannot require a State to carry out Federal acts. The Federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but your State isn’t required to help them.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed anti-commandeering, relevant court cases being:
1842 Prigg: The court held that States weren’t required to enforce Federal slavery laws.
1992 New York: The court held that Congress couldn’t require States to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
1997 Printz: The court held that “the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”
2012 Sebelius: The court held that the Federal government could not require the States to expand Medicaid, even under the threat of losing Federal funding.
Constitutional scholar Randy Barnett told National Journal recently: “State governments are free to refrain from cooperating with federal authorities if they so choose. In general, states cannot attack federal operations, but that’s not the same as refusing to help.”
These noncompliance bills do not run afoul of the Supremacy Clause, even if one were to claim that all Federal laws are supreme, instead of just those made “in pursuance” of the delegated powers in the Constitution.
Claiming they do is like claiming people who are boycotting a business are actually setting fire to it instead of just choosing not to shop there.
It’s just as absurd. Saying no to participation is far different than a physical standoff, both legally and practically.
Can It Work?
Simply put, the Federal government cannot force State or local governments to do the bidding of the Federal government. Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a Federal government busting at the seams.
Even the National Governors Association admitted the same recently when it sent out a press release noting that “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.”
That means States can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs.”
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” advised this very tactic. Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting Federal power in Federalist No. 46. He outlined several steps that States can take to effectively stop “an unwarrantable measure” or “even a warrantable measure” of the Federal government. Anticipating the anti-commandeering doctrine, Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a method of resistance.
This same process was used effectively by Northern Abolitionists in resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. And in Colorado, the whole world is able to see firsthand just how effective the States can be when they refuse to go along with Federal “laws.”
We should follow their courageous path against every other unConstitutional Federal act as well.
Moving forward, burning up the phone lines to your State House and asking legislators to introduce bills to refuse to participate in Federal acts like Obamacare, the NSA or gun control, can turn the tide toward liberty.
Many, if not most, Federal programs rely heavily on this kind of cooperation. Therefore, enacting anti-commandeering laws on various issues around the country can have the effect of a practical nullification — rendering Federal acts “nearly impossible to enforce.”
–Michael Boldin
Michael Boldin is the founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center. Michael has a full schedule working as senior editor of the Center's website, writes a regular column, fields media interviews, and travels the country (when invited, of course) to speak to crowds about sticking to the Constitution — every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.
[send him email] info@tenthamendmentcenter.com
http://personalliberty.com/contact-us/
All posts by Michael Boldin--http://personalliberty.com/author/michaelboldinpl/
January 28, 2014 by Michael Boldin
With a number of States now considering bills to thwart the implementation of Obamacare or legislation to turn off resources like water and power to National Security Agency facilities around the country, a number of political commentators are weighing in.
For example, Gail Kerr over at The Tennessean wrote about State Senator Mae Beavers’ bill to block Obamacare: “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act is constitutional. State laws cannot trump federal laws.”
Jacob Gershman at the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog suggested the same before having to retract shortly after.
The knee-jerk reaction of many “experts” is to claim that “Federal laws trump State laws when they conflict” whenever they write about a bill designed to take action against a Federal act.
Many of them don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
The Legislation
The bills in question are not coming into “conflict” with Federal laws at all; they seek to direct State agents and employees to stop participating in the enforcement of various Federal acts.
In Washington State, for example, House Bill 2272 would ban all public employees from participating in any actions that aid the NSA in its mass surveillance programs. While this would immediately ban the use of warrantless data in court proceedings in the States, it has even more significant impact in a State like Washington, because there is a physical NSA facility there that relies on third parties, such as State agencies, to provide electricity or water to stay operational.
A similar bill has been introduced in Tennessee, where the NSA’s encryption-breaking facility at Oak Ridge resides. And another is expected to be introduced soon in Utah, where the new NSA data center requires as much as 1.7 million gallons of water every day to cool the supercomputers. That water is being supplied by the state of Utah.
In a rallying cry that sounds surprisingly simple, supporters know that no water equals no NSA data center.
Back in Tennessee, Senate Bill 1888 states, in part, “No state entity shall establish or administer, or assist in establishing or administering, any specific regulatory scheme to operate the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, or any subsequent federal amendment to such act, in this state.”
Similar bills have been introduced in Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma and elsewhere.
Analyzing such state bills, FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano considered them an effective strategy against the Affordable Care Act. “If enough states do this, it will gut Obamacare because the federal government doesn’t have the resources… to go into each of the states if they start refusing,” he said.
In Florida yesterday, a bill was introduced in the State House to ban the entire State from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of Federal gun control measures — all of them — past, present or future.
Napolitano last year urged States to do just this, suggesting that the Federal government simply does not have the manpower to carry out these measures. Such a bill in a single State, he said, would make “federal gun laws nearly impossible to enforce.”
The Legal Doctrine
Is this legal?
In short, absolutely. The State laws do not come into conflict with Federal laws in any legal sense.
All of these proposals are based on the widely accepted legal principle known as the “anti-commandeering doctrine.”
This means the Federal government cannot require a State to carry out Federal acts. The Federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but your State isn’t required to help them.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed anti-commandeering, relevant court cases being:
1842 Prigg: The court held that States weren’t required to enforce Federal slavery laws.
1992 New York: The court held that Congress couldn’t require States to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
1997 Printz: The court held that “the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”
2012 Sebelius: The court held that the Federal government could not require the States to expand Medicaid, even under the threat of losing Federal funding.
Constitutional scholar Randy Barnett told National Journal recently: “State governments are free to refrain from cooperating with federal authorities if they so choose. In general, states cannot attack federal operations, but that’s not the same as refusing to help.”
These noncompliance bills do not run afoul of the Supremacy Clause, even if one were to claim that all Federal laws are supreme, instead of just those made “in pursuance” of the delegated powers in the Constitution.
Claiming they do is like claiming people who are boycotting a business are actually setting fire to it instead of just choosing not to shop there.
It’s just as absurd. Saying no to participation is far different than a physical standoff, both legally and practically.
Can It Work?
Simply put, the Federal government cannot force State or local governments to do the bidding of the Federal government. Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a Federal government busting at the seams.
Even the National Governors Association admitted the same recently when it sent out a press release noting that “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.”
That means States can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs.”
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” advised this very tactic. Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting Federal power in Federalist No. 46. He outlined several steps that States can take to effectively stop “an unwarrantable measure” or “even a warrantable measure” of the Federal government. Anticipating the anti-commandeering doctrine, Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a method of resistance.
This same process was used effectively by Northern Abolitionists in resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. And in Colorado, the whole world is able to see firsthand just how effective the States can be when they refuse to go along with Federal “laws.”
We should follow their courageous path against every other unConstitutional Federal act as well.
Moving forward, burning up the phone lines to your State House and asking legislators to introduce bills to refuse to participate in Federal acts like Obamacare, the NSA or gun control, can turn the tide toward liberty.
Many, if not most, Federal programs rely heavily on this kind of cooperation. Therefore, enacting anti-commandeering laws on various issues around the country can have the effect of a practical nullification — rendering Federal acts “nearly impossible to enforce.”
–Michael Boldin
Michael Boldin is the founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center. Michael has a full schedule working as senior editor of the Center's website, writes a regular column, fields media interviews, and travels the country (when invited, of course) to speak to crowds about sticking to the Constitution — every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.
[send him email] info@tenthamendmentcenter.com
http://personalliberty.com/contact-us/
All posts by Michael Boldin--http://personalliberty.com/author/michaelboldinpl/
Monday, January 20, 2014
How Bad Is The Fukushima Radiation In The Pacific Ocean?
by: Thomas Henry for NaturalNews.com
If you've heard about Fukushima radiation spreading to the Pacific Coast of North America but were "corrected" by sources both official and expert that this was based more on rumor than reality, then consider the information presented at the October 2013 North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) annual meeting.
Researchers from Fisheries and Oceans Canada confirmed that the radioactive plume from Fukushima is indeed reaching the shores of Canada and the United States - and was detected at least six months ago - carried both in the ocean surface water and the atmosphere on similar but slightly different courses.
In a presentation titled "Communicating the forecasts, uncertainty and consequences of ecosystem change," (read here: http://www.pices.int) the Canadian researchers gave evidence that the bulk of radioactivity from Fukushima is shifting almost entirely from the western portion of the North Pacific (Japan) to the eastern portion (North America) over the course of the next five years. As of 2012, it had already reached the central region of the Pacific Ocean, and a previously unpublished map shows that, as of 2013, it had reached the shores of Alaska and British Columbia, with the most intense area of the plume yet to arrive.
If you've heard about Fukushima radiation spreading to the Pacific Coast of North America but were "corrected" by sources both official and expert that this was based more on rumor than reality, then consider the information presented at the October 2013 North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) annual meeting.
Researchers from Fisheries and Oceans Canada confirmed that the radioactive plume from Fukushima is indeed reaching the shores of Canada and the United States - and was detected at least six months ago - carried both in the ocean surface water and the atmosphere on similar but slightly different courses.
In a presentation titled "Communicating the forecasts, uncertainty and consequences of ecosystem change," (read here: http://www.pices.int) the Canadian researchers gave evidence that the bulk of radioactivity from Fukushima is shifting almost entirely from the western portion of the North Pacific (Japan) to the eastern portion (North America) over the course of the next five years. As of 2012, it had already reached the central region of the Pacific Ocean, and a previously unpublished map shows that, as of 2013, it had reached the shores of Alaska and British Columbia, with the most intense area of the plume yet to arrive.
Vaccine industry far worse than Big Tobacco
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
Just as the dental industry has for decades ridiculously denied the toxicity of mercury in dental fillings, the vaccine industry is also living in delusional state of total denial about the toxicity of mercury. What we are witnessing today with modern medicine is a vaccine holocaust that is killing and maiming our children in record numbers. And the "circle the wagons" strategy of suppressing all the scientific evidence to support this makes Big Pharma look even worse than Big Tobacco.
The entire vaccine industry -- including all its bought-and-paid-for doctors, authors, "scientists" and PR flaks -- has for decades knowingly lied to the world in claiming that vaccines have "zero risk" and "zero side effects."
In truth, even the CDC still admits that vaccines contain four additives, each of which is a potent neurotoxic chemical. Those additives include:
• Mercury (still used as a preservative)
• Aluminum (used as an inflammatory adjuvant)
• Formaldehyde (used to "deactivate" live viruses)
• MSG / Monosodium Glutamate (used to caused immune system inflammation)
All of these substances are toxic to human biology when injected. There is no rational doctor or scientist in the world who can say they believe injecting infants and children with mercury, formaldehyde, MSG and aluminum is somehow "safe," yet doctors inject children with these substances every single day in the form of vaccines.
At what point will autism reach 1 in 10 children? It's not that far off (it's already over 1 in 100 children born today). If this level of disease were caused by anything other than vaccines, the CDC would have long declared it an epidemic and tried to push a vaccine for it. But because autism is linked to vaccines and mercury, the CDC downplays it and ridiculously pretends children aren't being harmed. The FDA plays the same game of denial, hoping no one will notice as the condition multiplies to the point where one day potentially every fifth child will be autistic after receiving the hundreds of "required" vaccines that will be mandated in the near future.
We are talking about the downfall of a nation here, folks. If this vaccine holocaust is not stopped, America will not survive. No nation can survive the collapse in the health of its citizens. Injecting mercury into the population of America is just as idiotic as feeding the citizens of Rome drinking water laced with lead. Many historians say the lead poisoning of the citizens of Rome exacerbated its downfall. Today, vaccines are strongly contributing to the same sort of downfall of modern civilization.
To learn more on this issue, read my list of 10 startling facts about vaccines the CDC and the vaccine industry don't want you to know.
And watch this informative video explaining the connection of autism and vaccines.
Editor of NaturalNews.com
Just as the dental industry has for decades ridiculously denied the toxicity of mercury in dental fillings, the vaccine industry is also living in delusional state of total denial about the toxicity of mercury. What we are witnessing today with modern medicine is a vaccine holocaust that is killing and maiming our children in record numbers. And the "circle the wagons" strategy of suppressing all the scientific evidence to support this makes Big Pharma look even worse than Big Tobacco.
The entire vaccine industry -- including all its bought-and-paid-for doctors, authors, "scientists" and PR flaks -- has for decades knowingly lied to the world in claiming that vaccines have "zero risk" and "zero side effects."
In truth, even the CDC still admits that vaccines contain four additives, each of which is a potent neurotoxic chemical. Those additives include:
• Mercury (still used as a preservative)
• Aluminum (used as an inflammatory adjuvant)
• Formaldehyde (used to "deactivate" live viruses)
• MSG / Monosodium Glutamate (used to caused immune system inflammation)
All of these substances are toxic to human biology when injected. There is no rational doctor or scientist in the world who can say they believe injecting infants and children with mercury, formaldehyde, MSG and aluminum is somehow "safe," yet doctors inject children with these substances every single day in the form of vaccines.
At what point will autism reach 1 in 10 children? It's not that far off (it's already over 1 in 100 children born today). If this level of disease were caused by anything other than vaccines, the CDC would have long declared it an epidemic and tried to push a vaccine for it. But because autism is linked to vaccines and mercury, the CDC downplays it and ridiculously pretends children aren't being harmed. The FDA plays the same game of denial, hoping no one will notice as the condition multiplies to the point where one day potentially every fifth child will be autistic after receiving the hundreds of "required" vaccines that will be mandated in the near future.
We are talking about the downfall of a nation here, folks. If this vaccine holocaust is not stopped, America will not survive. No nation can survive the collapse in the health of its citizens. Injecting mercury into the population of America is just as idiotic as feeding the citizens of Rome drinking water laced with lead. Many historians say the lead poisoning of the citizens of Rome exacerbated its downfall. Today, vaccines are strongly contributing to the same sort of downfall of modern civilization.
To learn more on this issue, read my list of 10 startling facts about vaccines the CDC and the vaccine industry don't want you to know.
And watch this informative video explaining the connection of autism and vaccines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)