Kentucky Cops Confiscate $600k In Marijuana & Brag About It


 

Published on Aug 9, 2016

Deputies in Grayson County, Kentucky found more than $600,000 worth of marijuana hidden in a corn field, confiscated it and then left a note stuck in the corn leaves letting the growers know about it. Deputies then started the hashtag #WeGotYoWeed in a Facebook post to taunt the growers…
Read More At:
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/kentu…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rQv8LepIvk

The order has caused chaos; White House statements haven’t clarified what’s going on.


What Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration Does—and Doesn’t Do

Krishnadev Calamur

Updated on Sunday, January 29, at 4:12 p.m.

President Trump signed on Friday an executive order that severely restricts immigration from seven Muslim countries, suspends all refugee admission for 120 days, and bars all Syrian refugees indefinitely. The order has been widely criticized and praised—but it led to massive protests at several airports across the country where people with valid documentation were detained. Legal challenges against those detentions were successful. The administration’s response Sunday only made the situation more unclear.

Here’s what the executive order does and doesn’t do, the challenges to it, and how the Trump administration responded.

Who is not affected?

The executive order applies only to non-U.S. citizens, so anyone with U.S. citizenship—whether that person in natural-born or naturalized—is not affected. But on Sunday, Reince Preibus, the White House chief of staff, said on NBC’s Meet the Press that Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents would have the “discretionary authority” to question U.S. citizens coming from the seven countries. CBP agents have had that authority even before Friday’s executive order.

“I would suspect that if you’re an American citizen traveling back and forth to Libya, you’re likely to be subjected to further questioning when you come into an airport,” he said.

Who is affected?

For 120 days, the order bars the entry of any refugee who is awaiting resettlement in the U.S. It also prohibits all Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. until further notice. Additionally, it bans the citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering the U.S. on any visa category.*

On Saturday this included individuals who are permanent residents of the U.S. (green-card holders) who were traveling overseas to visit family or for work—though a senior administration official said their applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis. The official also said green-card holders from those countries who are in the U.S. will have to meet with a consular officer before leaving the U.S.

News reports suggested the White House overruled the Department of Homeland Security’s recommendations on excluding green-card holders from the executive orders. Preibus, on Meet the Press, denied that, then appeared to suggest that the order won’t affect permanent residents going forward, but when pressed appeared to contradict himself.

“We didn’t overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green-card holders moving forward, it doesn’t affect them,” he said. But when pressed by Chuck Todd, the show’s host, on whether the order affected green-card holders, he replied: “Well, of course it does. If you’re traveling back and forth, you’re going to be subjected to further screening.”

The order also targets individuals of those countries who hold dual citizenship with another country. For instance, an individual who holds both Iraqi and Canadian citizenships—though the U.K. foreign secretary said the U.S. had assured him it didn’t apply to U.K. nationals.

It does not apply to individuals who hold U.S. citizenship along with citizenship of another country—though a CBP agent can presumably question such a person based on his or her discretion.

Why were those seven countries chosen?

Trump had made national security a centerpiece of his election campaign—at one point calling for a “total and complete” ban on all Muslims coming to the U.S. Although the executive order does not do that, Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, said on ABC’s This Week that the president “hit the ground running, had a flurry of activity, to do exactly what he said he was going to do.”

Spicer noted that the seven counties put on the list were chosen by the Obama administration. Indeed, it has its roots in the visa-waiver program. The U.S. allows the citizens of more than 30 countries to visit for short stays without a visa under this program. But that visa waiver does not apply if a citizen of an eligible country has visited—with some exceptions—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011—under measures put in place by the Obama administration. Those individuals must apply for a visa at a U.S. consulate. These seven countries are listed under section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) of the U.S. code, and it is this code that Trump’s executive order cited while banning citizens of those nations.

What is the impact?

The number of permanent residents from these countries is relatively small. For instance, 1,016,518 green cards were issued in 2014. Of these, 19,153 went to Iraqis and 11,615 to Iranians, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s data. These two countries make up the overwhelming majority of U.S. permanent residents from among the seven nations, which together have 500,000 permanent resident in the U.S., according to ProPublica. But the seven nations, as I reported this week, also account for 40 percent of U.S. refugee intake.

Numbers, however, seldom tell the whole story. There have been multiple reports since the executive order was signed of people being prevented from boarding flights; refugees, who had gone through the years-long process before being approved to come to the U.S., stranded in third countries; of Iraqis who had worked for years with the U.S. military being denied entry; of Iranian students stuck overseas; of U.S. tech companies recalling its foreign workers because of the possible impact. And there have been protests against the order at airports across the country, including at New York’s JFK International Airport and Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C. , and the Los Angeles International Airport where lawyers, demonstrators, and the media descended to witness the order’s impact.    

Is this a Muslim ban?

Technically, no. The ban includes seven majority Muslim countries, but by no means are these states the most populous Muslim countries, nor are they among the top sources of Muslim immigration to the U.S., nor have they produced terrorists in the same numbers as other Muslim countries not on the list. Indeed, Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and other countries can still visit the U.S.

Still, advocacy groups challenging the order say a Muslim ban is precisely what it amounts to. Indeed, they cited former the words New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s comments Saturday on Fox News. Giuliani said that Trump had asked for a “Muslim ban,” but one that was done legally. He said he and a panel of experts “focused on, instead of religion, danger.”

“The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis,” he said. “Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible.”

He went onto say the ban was “not based on religion.”

“It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country,” he said.

“What we’ve seen here is stunning,” David Leopold, a Cleveland-based immigration lawyer who is a past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said on a conference call Saturday with reporters. “No president ever ever has used the authority and statute of the law to ban people based on their religion, ban people based on their nationality.”

He said President Carter’s ban on Iranians in 1980 after the Islamic revolution “barred certain classifications, not the whole country.”

Is there legal action?

Yes. Judges in four cities—Alexandria, Virginia; Boston; New York; and Seattle—ruled against the detention of individuals at airports—in cases filed by the ACLU and others. The rulings appear to be limited to those people already at U.S. airports or in transit. They do not appear to say anything about the legality of the president’s actions. DHS said it would comply with the orders—and some,but not all, of the people being detained at airports were allowed to leave.

The rulings were in response to legal challenges filed Saturday by the ACLU on behalf of two Iraqis who were detained at JFK Airport. The group also filed what’s known as a motion for class certification, which would allow it to represent others who say they were detained at airports and other ports of entry to the U.S. But there may be challenges ahead.

Indeed, Trump has broad discretion under the law to bar a class of person deemed detrimental to the U.S. from entering the country. Leopold, the immigration lawyer, said the issue will have to be resolved by the courts.

“The problem we’ve got there,” Leopold said, “ is that this is unprecedented.”


* This article originally states that the ban did not extend to non-Muslims from the seven countries; the ban extends to all citizens of those countries. We regret the error.

CONTINUE READING…

Give a Pregnant Mom Marijuana, Be Guilty of Murder?


Opposing abortion alone does not make someone pro-life. That stance is merely “pro-birth,” according to Sister Joan Chittister, a Catholic nun and thus a member of a broad, billion-person-strong social movement—the Catholic Church—which does not look kindly upon abortion. To be pro-life, one must care for someone after they’re born, not just before. 

So. What makes someone so concerned with the welfare of the unborn that they’d like to imprison their mothers for even the slightest taste of cannabis while pregnant—creating a sort of ob-gyn to prison pipeline?

“Fucking crazy” might be one reasonable conclusion. It would also make you a “Wyoming state lawmaker,” such as the cabal in Cheyenne that’s pushing a new package of drug laws.

K2Radio brings us news of the push to criminalize—further, since there are plenty of bad parenting laws on the books—“drug induced infant endangerment.”

The brainchild of Rep. Jim Blackburn, Rep. Mark Jennings, Rep. Jared Olsen, Rep. Nathan Winters and Sen. Ogden Driskill—dudes, all of them, of course—the bill creates stiff penalties for a pregnant mother who uses any illegal drug, and even stiffer penalties for anyone who provides the pregnant mother with said drug.

Nobody would argue using methamphetamine or heroin while pregnant is a good idea. Same thing with alcohol or tobacco. Conveniently, the way this law is written, it would be remarkably easy to punish a mother for even the slightest marijuana use.

To be guilty of “drug-induced infant homicide,” a mother need only give “birth to a viable infant during or after drug use,” after which point “and the infant dies, or drug use contributes to the infant’s death.” That would be a felony punishable by 10 years in prison.

The threshold to be guilty of “drug-induced infant abuse,” which carries a five-year prison term, is even lower: A mother faces that penalty if she uses “an illegal narcotic drug while pregnant and gives birth to a child who tests positive for any amount of that drug” (emphasis ours).

Before you fool yourself into thinking this is reasonable, remember the context.

More mothers than ever before are using cannabis during pregnancy in order to deal with morning sickness. To all the men out there: Imagine being sick, every day, in some cases for most of the day. Then imagine being in a situation where you had to eat in order to deliver nutrition to the thing growing inside you, but being too sick to do so.

It’s still not clear what happens to a child whose mother uses marijuana during pregnancy, though some studies suggest there’s no issue at all.

This comes shortly after the DEA recently specified that cannabidiol, CBD, the non-psychoactive cannabinoid, is a Schedule I drug. And finally, since marijuana is fat-soluble and stays in the body for weeks or longer after use, the takeaway is that if this passes, a mother who so much as sniffs cannabis during pregnancy could lose her child and end up in the state pen for a five-spot.

But that’s nothing compared to the individual who delivered the drugs to the expectant mother.

If someone “knowingly” delivers a Schedule I or II controlled substance to a pregnant mother, they risk a prison term of between 10 and 25 years, according to K2Radio.

Methamphetamine is a huge problem in Wyoming, according to the Justice Department… just as drug abuse is an issue anywhere the economy is trash, including poor neighborhoods in big liberal cities. And like everywhere else, heroin use has come roaring back in Wyoming, riding the crest of the tsunami of prescription pills unleashed in America, as a 2015 story in GQ detailed.

You don’t often hear more incarceration and more crime as the solution to these ills—at least not in serious academic or scientific circles. But that’s not the thinking when you’re pro-birth—and pro-prison.

You can keep up with all of HIGH TIMES’ marijuana news right here.

CONTINUE READING…

What You Can Do to FREE Sam Girod


What You Can Do to FREE Sam Girod

Please do whatever you can! The Backstory The FDA is trying to put Sam in jail for 58 YEARS for a labeling infraction. Basic story here: http://www.davidgumpert.com/2783-2

Indictment here with explanations: http://www.kyfreepress.com/2017/01/fda-girod-indictment/

Local CBS affiliate story here: http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/WKYT-Investigation-Amish-farmer-in-jail-awaiting-trial-facing-time-in-federal-prison-411915635.html

 

What You Can Do

1. We beg President Trump to issue an immediate pardon for Sam. Please sign this petition: http://bit.ly/freeamishsam. Sam’s trial is in 4 weeks.

2. An email to Trump could only help: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

3. We sincerely hope that Atty General Sessions will step in and stop this gov’t abuse. A quick email to him will help: https://www.justice.gov/contact-us

4. Call or email your legislators, all of them. Your U.S. Senators and House Reps as well as your state legislators, even if you don’t live in KY. Just do a search on your legislator’s name and you’ll find a phone number or email address.

5. Donate to Sam’s legal fees: https://www.gofundme.com/supportsamnow

6. Attend Sam’s trial on 2/27/17 at 9am at the Federal Courthouse, 101 Barr Street, Lexington, KY. It’s slated to go for four days. Even if you can’t stay very long, a presence at any time will be helpful. Probably earlier is better, but any time.

 

The FDA has been going after small farmers for decades and if they haven’t been doing so in your state, they will soon. What’s to stop them?

For evidence of FDA and USDA abuses, watch Farmageddon on Amazon or Netflix. This has been going on for far too long and it’s time to stop it. Only YOU and I can do that!

Just lately these agencies have been particularly venomous toward the Amish. Reining in federal agencies is a huge promise made by almost every politician of late. Let’s hold them to it!!!

Recent Articles:

KY Amish Farmer Jailed over a Salve Label; the FDA Wants Him Jailed for Life

Our mailing address is:

KyFreePress.com

312 Pine Crest Rd #117

Morehead, KY 40531

Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell Launch ‘Bold and Aggressive’ 200-Day Plan to Implement Trump Agenda


by Neil W. McCabe28 Jan 2017Philadelphia2,241

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania–Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R.-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) told reporters Thursday at the Republicans’ policy retreat here that they are committed to a 200-day program to implement the agenda of President Donald J. Trump.

“We are actually having a fantastic opportunity right here in Philadelphia,” said Ryan, wearing a striped button down oxford shirt and tan pants combination in keeping with the “retreat” atmosphere of the party’s three-day series of workshops, speeches, and mixers. The Republicans arrived Wednesday morning and stayed until their working breakfast Friday.

In addition to workshops and discussions, the Republicans were visited by Trump, British Prime Minister Theresa May, and Super Bowl champion quarterback Peyton Manning.

“We are talking about the improvement of people’s lives and getting our country back on track,” he said. “House Republicans and Senate Republicans are working on a plan and bold agenda to get moving and work with our new administration.”

New administrations have been captive to the “First 100 Days” framing ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt came into office in 1933 with a whirlwind of legislation and administrative actions. But, Ryan said, the Republicans had developed along with the Trump White House a 200-day plan that will wrap up with the August recess.

At the end of the 200 days, Capitol Hill Republicans expect to have repealed and replaced Obamacare, filled the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, and executed the most dramatic reform of the federal tax code since President Ronald W. Reagan’s flattening of tax rates in 1986.

Ryan said no one should be shocked by the ambitious agenda.

“We ran on these issue in 2016, so there’s no surprises here and the president agrees to this agenda,” he said.

Along the way, the emphasis or focus is going to change, depending on whether the messaging is coming from the White House or Capitol Hill, but Ryan insisted that he and Trump and McConnell are on the same page.

McConnell said he is working on a daily basis with the president and his staff to map out a bold and aggressive program that both fixes the problems and mistakes left by the last administration and fulfills campaign promises made in 2016.

“We are on the same page,” the senator said.

For some items, such as immigration or even building the wall along the Mexican border, there are no legislative fights ahead because the laws were already passed. The wall was authorized by the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and the president is going to merely enforce the immigration laws his predecessor ignored.

McConnell said a major factor in moving from the traditional 100-day plan to a 200-day plan was the Senate’s confirmation workload. Dozens of appointments require Senate approval, which he said converts the Senate into the White House’s personnel office.

“The speaker understands the challenges of getting things done in the Senate,” he said. “That’s been true for 240 years, we are aware of those challenges, and we think we can move forward.”

The Republican majority in the Senate is 52-to-48, which means even with Vice President Michael R. Pence available to break a tie, if three GOP senators defect, the Democrats win.

This tight margin means that the Senate Republicans do not have the votes to end debate and force a vote, which requires 60 votes.

To make an end run around lacking the votes for cloture, Republicans are forced to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act through the budget reconciliation process. In this process, the budget bills are privileged, so they must come to a vote after 50 hours of debate. The drawback to this process is that bills can only deal with budget-related issues, and whatever is passed expires in 10 years. When Congress voted to repeal Obamacare in the week before Trump was sworn in, it was really a partial repeal that gutted the fees, taxes, and fines associated with President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform but left the rules and regulations in place.

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D.-N.Y.) has vowed to block and delay the Republicans at every turn, when it comes to Obamacare.

McConnell said, “If Hillary Clinton were president and Chuck Schumer were the majority leader, we would be revisiting Obamacare. The status quo is clearly unacceptable. If Hillary Clinton were president and Chuck Schumer were majority leader, we’d be moving toward a single-payer system.” A single-payer system is one in which all healthcare expenses are paid by the government.

Another development at the retreat was the resolve among GOP senators to fill the vacancy left by the Feb. 13, 2016 death of Justice Antonin G. Scalia.

Again the problem is the GOP’s lack of 60 votes.

Before then-majority leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) invoked the “nuclear option” in 2013, all confirmations were part of the two-step process of ending debate with 60 votes and then confirming the nominee with a simple majority. Reid executed a challenge to the rule for nominees in order to break the logjam of Obama appointments–blocked by the Republican minority. With this maneuver, Reid was able to fill vacancies on federal benches, at the Federal Communications Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — all of which led a torrent of new regulations as well as favorable rulings from newly appointed judges.

With respect to presidential appointments, Reid shattered a long-standing Senate protocol, which says that unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate works its will either through consensus or exhaustion.

But he left one piece of the protocol in place: the Supreme Court. One of the main reasons Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia, Judge Merrick Garland, languished was that the 60-vote threshold was insurmountable going into the 2016 elections. Now, that same reason gives Schumer and Senate Democrats a veto over anyone Trump nominates for the high court.

It is now clear from conversations with Republican senators and staff that if ending debate on Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court is blocked by Schumer, the GOP is ready to strike down the last vestige of the filibuster for presidential appointees.

The only answer a Republican senator gives for the record on the matter is: “The seat will be filled.” It is the same answer every time from everyone.

The last big item is the overhaul of the federal tax code. Of all of the GOP plans, this is the one most hidden from public view.

In the past, the grand bargain of Republican tax reform proposals was to return to the ideals of the 1986 legislation, which eliminated deductions in exchange for lowering rates. Flattening the tax code, or even going to a flat tax with one rate with very few deductions,was the ultimate goal.

Trump-era tax reform is something else entirely. This is full-on industrial policy and a shifting of the tax burden back onto imports and off of exports. This is not a new idea and, given the man’s popularity on Broadway, it is only fitting that America returns to the essence of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 “Report on Subject Manufactures.” This was the country’s economic DNA until the post-World War II shift towards America sacrificing its interests for the rest of the world.

Hamilton called on Congress to protect “infant industries” with tariffs on imported goods, which until 1916 and the birth of the income tax provided the vast majority of federal revenues.

Today, the United States runs a trade deficit of $30-to-$40 billion per month, and Republicans are ready to tap or monetize that trade gap to the tune of $1 trillion per year. How they are going to do it is beyond the scope of this course. Suffice to say, they intend to not only raise this revenue to pay for massive tax cuts, but also to remove the economic incentive for American companies to move manufacturing overseas and then ship their finished products into the United States.

Of course, the ox gored in this reform is retailers and companies which rely on imported materials but do not export. Those folks are completely aware of what is going on, and of all the fights coming to Capitol Hill in the next 200 days, the tax overhaul will be the most vicious and the most likely to break up friendships.

In the end, though Trump is the man making all of this possible, and it is Trump who will be responsible for holding things together.

It is almost surreal to hear Ryan or McConnell speak of the president with respect and affection after a campaign cycle in which neither man dared stand up for him publicly amid crisis after crisis.

Yet the Republican Party is now Trump’s party, with the exception of Sen. John S. McCain III (R.-Ariz.) and his sidekick Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R.-S.C.). But two rebels does not become a problem until they find a third senator. Otherwise, the Capitol Hill Republicans are on board and on duty for the president.

It is also fair to say that Trump is also on board and on duty for his congressional party. More than once in his young presidency, he has signaled that he will fight alongside his congressmen and senators and give them political cover — a luxury never enjoyed by Democrats serving under Obama.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Alexander Hamilton, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, House Republicans, Judge Merrick Garland, Justice Antonin G. Scalia, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Donald J. Trump, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Secure Fence Act of 2006, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D.-N.Y.), Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), Sen. John S. McCain III (R.-Ariz.), Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R.-S.C.), Senate Republicans, Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R.-Wis.), Supreme Court, Vice-President Michael R. Pence

Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart’s Facebook Page.

New bill would sell off 3 million acres of public lands


The Wilderness Society

The Wilderness Society’s mission is to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places.

yesterday

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz wants to sell off 3.3 million acres of public lands, the latest step in a plan to seize Our Wild. Photo credit: Michael Jolley, flickr.

New bill would sell off 3 million acres of public lands

Under a recently passed House rule, a new bill would sell off 3 million acres of public lands — an egregious assault on Our Wild.

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz’s bill identifies 3.3 million acres across 10 states to be ‘disposed of’ and sold off, just a few days after the House passed a rules package that makes such land seizure plans easier to execute.

Click here to call your representative! Tell them to vote AGAINST the new land takeover bill (H.R. 621)!

Fellow Utah Congressman Rob Bishop, seeming to nurse an eternal grudge against the very idea of public lands, concocted the latter provision for just this purpose. Right now, the Congressional Budget Office, which provides lawmakers with data so they can make budget decisions, officially considers public lands to have no monetary value, meaning that legislation like Chaffetz’s has an easier path to enactment.

“Trump’s allies in Washington laid the tracks for this land takeover scheme the moment they started their legislative session, and now they’re driving a locomotive over and through the American people and our wild natural heritage,” said Alan Rowsome, senior government relations director for The Wilderness Society, in a statement.

A study released in 2016 estimated that parks and programs managed by the National Park Service alone are worth about $92 billion. That doesn’t even account for the more than 560 national wildlife refuges, 150-some national forests and more than 200 sites in the Bureau of Land Management’s National Conservation Lands system. But to some members of Congress, none of that matters — Our Wild belongs on the clearance rack, and the sooner America liquidates it, the better.

Chaffetz’s land sell-off scheme based on unpopular idea

Chaffetz’s bill, which he previously introduced in a slightly different form, would sell lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming to reduce the federal deficit. A poll conducted just a few months after the first time he introduced the legislation in 2013 showed that 72 percent of voters in western states would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports selling public lands to reduce the budget deficit. Most voters in his own state said they are less likely to vote for a candidate who proposes the sale of federal lands, too.

The congressman couches his proposal in populist language about benefitting taxpayers, as have many other proponents of fringe land seizure efforts. But people in Utah and across the U.S. decisively reject the idea of selling off public lands: Polling from after the 2016 election showed that 78 percent of Americans oppose efforts to privatize or sell public lands, including 64 percent of people who voted for Trump.

Politicians are waging war on Our Wild — will you help defend it?

This is not Rep. Chaffetz’s first dalliance with extremist anti-conservation proposals that try to degrade public lands or tear them away from the American people. He has previously supported measures to eliminate presidents’ ability to protect land as national monuments, and to allow widespread motorized access to wilderness areas.

However, sadly, he is not alone. A cohort of lawmakers in Washington and at the state level are following the lead of the Bundy family and attacking the previously inviolable idea of Our Wild. We need to make sure our representatives remember that they work for US.

What you can do:

Click here to call your representative! Tell them to vote AGAINST the new land takeover bill (H.R. 621)!

Or dial them online at 202–224–3121 and tell them to vote AGAINST H.R. 621.

  • Tell your member of Congress you think public lands have tremendous value!
  • Tell your member of Congress where you are from, and about the public lands you cherish.
  • Challenge your member of Congress to demonstrate his or her support for our public lands by pledging to protect them from the Trump Administration and anti-conservation lawmakers.

Learn more about the campaign to protect Our Wild.

H.R.621 – To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes

Ignorance abounds in Kentucky concerning cannabis law


 

In October, farmworkers transported harvested marijuana plants at Los Suenos Farms, America’s largest legal open-air marijuana farm, in southern Colorado.

 

The following story was printed on Kentucky.com and my response is included.

By Thomas Vance

The world is watching Colorado and is finding out that everything we have been told by our government about marijuana has not been factual, to put it nicely.

Colorado legalized medical marijuana in 2012 and recreational in 2014. They have paid more than $150 million in taxes on $1.3 billion in sales for 2016 and have created more than 20,000 full-time jobs in the process and none of the predicted harms of legalization have materialized.

California has had an easy access medical marijuana program for 20 years and none of the terrible things we have been told will happen should cannabis be legal have happened.

All we have to do is copy Colorado’s regulations and standards and get on with it. What are we waiting for? The people in our eastern counties are praying for something to replace the coal industry. God has one ready to go for us and we are ignoring his help.

It’s like the old joke about the guy trapped on his roof in a flood. He prays for God to save him. A helicopter comes by and offers to pick the man up. “No, no, thanks anyway but God said he would save me.”

After a while a boat comes and offers to pick up the man. Again he says no because, “God will save me.”

Later on that night, the waters rose and the man drowned. When he gets up to Heaven He asks God, “Why, why God, didn’t you save me?” and God replies, “I sent you a boat and a helicopter, why didn’t you get in?”

Let’s take this winning lottery ticket the good Lord has given us: an industry safer and healthier than coal. Alleviate the suffering of our eastern counties, create thousands of jobs, garner millions in revenue, enable billions in economic activity and put that money to work for the citizens of our great state.

It would seem that if we get to the end of this legislative session and nothing is done, one could reasonably conclude the Republican-controlled legislature is being derelict in its duty to improve the lives and the well being of our citizens and our state.

Thomas Vance of Alexandria is senior adviser for Veterans for Medical Cannabis Access.

Sample of comments:

H.B. Elkins ·

Media Consultant at Kentucky Valley Media Consulting

Industrial hemp, medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are three distinctly different and separate issues. Far too many times, advocates have appeared to champion the first two and then they show their true colors and advocate for the third. This puts a cloud of suspicion over the motives for supporting industrial hemp and medical marijuana.
You do your cause no favors by mentioning Colorado’s approval of recreational use if you are really advocating medical use. I suspect you are really for full legalization and are just using medical use as an incremental step.
Be honest about your motives. It won’t make me support recreational legalization — I don’t — but it will allow me to respect your efforts.

 

MY RESPONSE:

It is people like HB and JOHN below who are complicit in keeping the repeal of cannabis hemp laws out of KY. Unfortunately most of the politicians in KY have the same mindset.

It all boils down to who has the money now and who they don’t want to have any in the future.

Personally, I am not a legalizer, I am a repealer, meaning that I believe all Cannabis statutes from the Federal Government and UN should be abolished as they are illegal to begin with in my opinion. (Do your own research because I am tired) Legalization renders to regulation which renders to incarceration because, well, what can be more profitable than the prison industrial complex?

This plant has been useful for all of humanity’s existence and will continue to be,  regardless of whether it is legalized or not. (Again, do the research).. The sad part is all the people that could be helped (and one day it may be YOU) that will suffer and die needlessly because of evil people whose only concern in life is how much money they can scarf up from everyone else.

In the meantime, many peoples lives are being saved or at least made better by an illegal plant that God put here, by people who are risking there very lives to get this to those that need it – real patients.

Yes, there are those of us who enjoy smoking a good cannabis ‘cig’ – It helps relieve the mind of stress and pain. Sure is a lot better than the alcohol which most people consume on a daily basis and end up dying from in the long run…

So, I guess until everyone gets their heads on straight about Cannabis, everyone will continue to suffer from statutes, regulation, and imprisonment because people are either too stupid to educate themselves, or are too evil to care.

Which one are YOU???

sk

SOURCE AND LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE ON KENTUCKY.COM

Embattled Doc Suffers Another Setback in PHS Fight


Pauline Anderson

January 27, 2017

Michael Langan, MD, a Boston-based internal medicine specialist who has fought the Massachusetts Physician Health Service (PHS) and Board of Registration in Medicine for years to reinstate his license, has suffered a setback but is bolstered by a new development.

A justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has denied Dr Langan’s petition to invalidate the 2013 suspension of his medical license for not meeting conditions to have his license reinstated.

However, a new law has enabled Dr Langan to access his records. According to Dr Langan, these documents show that the court did not consider key evidence in his case, as demonstrated by the fact that his hearing occurred before the date of receipt that is stamped on the documents. This may offer an opportunity to reopen his case.

The court decision, which was handed down in December by Associate Justice Geraldine Hines, states that although Dr Langan completed required psychiatric evaluations, he “did not submit a suitable worksite or substance abuse monitoring plan. In combination with his violation of the LoA [Letter of Agreement] meeting requirement, the board’s decision to affirm its prior suspension of petitioner’s license to practice medicine is supported by the record. The board’s decision to deny reinstatement in the absence of an acceptable plan is affirmed.”

“It’s unbelievable; everyone is dumbfounded,” said Dr Langan of the decision.

Dr Langan is appealing the denial of his petition, a process that will take an estimated 6 months.

He maintains that the PHS committed “forensic fraud” and concealed doing so.

“If I couldn’t win with all the direct evidence of felony crimes that you don’t need to be a lawyer to recognize, then I don’t think anyone can,” he told Medscape Medical News.

The PHS is a confidential resource for physicians and medical students seeking help for a variety of physical and behavioral health concerns, which may include difficulties with substance use.

In 2007, Dr Langan was at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Harvard University when he approached the PHS to help him with his dependence on Vicodin, an opioid analgesic.

He became dependent on Vicodin after a bout of chickenpox during residency, when he developed shingles. He stressed that there were no work-related problems associated with use of this drug.

He was an inpatient at the Talbott Recovery Center in Georgia for more than 3 months, after which he signed the requisite 5-year contract with the PHS that included regular drug testing.

According to Dr Langan, there were no problems until mid-2011, when a report from the US Drug Testing Laboratories found he was positive for phosphatidylethanol (PEth), a blood marker for chronic alcohol use.

The level detected was 365.4 ng/mL, which “is the equivalent of drinking a half gallon of whisky a day,” or a sign of end-stage alcoholism, said Dr Langan, who insists he has never had an alcohol problem.

“That the test was invalid at this point should have been self-evident,” said Dr Langan.

Lab Fraud? Continue Reading

Suspecting that there had been “lab fraud” and that he would “end up being admitted for 3 months,” Dr Langan said he requested, but was denied, an independent evaluation outside the 12-step PHP-approved list of facilities. Because his request was denied, he attended one of the approved facilities, Hazelden Addiction Treatment Center, in Minnesota, where he “was cleared.”

“They noted no past or present history of alcohol use or abuse and sent me back after a 4-day evaluation,” he said.

An independent investigation by James G. Flood, PhD, who has been chief of toxicology at MGH for nearly 30 years, concluded in a November 5, 2012, letter to Dr Langan’s lawyer “that there is a purposeful and intentional act by PHS” to show Dr Langan’s test as valid “when in reality this test was invalid and involved both fatal laboratory errors” and inadequate review of the results.

Any confirmatory, positive finding based on the July 2011 test “should be reversed, rectified and remediated,” Dr Flood writes.

Among the “many errors in sample collection, processing and transportation,” said Dr Flood, was that the documentation that was received with the specimen did not have a date and time of specimen collection. Moreover, the person who collected the specimen was not properly identified, the signature of the sample donor was missing, and there was no tamper-proof seal affixed to the specimen.

Dr Flood claims the sample was directed to the wrong laboratory, where it sat for several days. The storage conditions of the sample while at that laboratory were not documented.

Following an investigation by the College of American Pathologists, in October 2012, Dr Langan’s laboratory test result was corrected from having a positive result to being an invalid test, but he said he did not learn of this change until months later.

In a letter to the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, Luis T. Sanchez, MD, who at the time was the director of the Massachusetts PHS, said the amended report indicates that the “external chain of custody protocol [for that sample] was not followed per standard protocol.”

Dr Sanchez noted that, on the basis of the revised report, “PHS will continue to disregard the July 2011 PEth test result.”

Dr Langan requested the record of the chain of custody pertaining to his testing. This document showed that the test was “not only invalid but falsely created,” said Dr Langan. He added that it included a fax from the PHS requesting that his identification number be added to an already positive test and that the chain of custody be updated.

“You can’t update a chain of custody, as it is generated in real time,” said Dr Langan. “This is forensic fraud. It clearly shows collusion between the PHS and the lab.”

In an October 2012 letter, Dr Sanchez alleged that Dr Langan did not attend required peer support group meetings, but according to Dr Langan, this claim is “without fact or support.” Dr Langan maintains that he attended all required meetings. He also maintains that the PHS actions were in “retaliation” for requesting the chain of custody record.

Massachusetts PHS Director Dr Sanchez did not respond to a request from Medscape Medical News for clarification.

Medscape Medical News also sought comment on recent developments in Dr Langan’s case from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, which declined to comment.

“The AG’s [Attorney General’s] Office often defends state agencies in litigation and we typically do not comment on behalf of our clients, who in this case is the Board of Registration in Medicine,” Emily Snyder, deputy press secretary, Office of Massachusetts Attorney General, told Medscape Medical News in an email.

Intentional Delay?

Dr Langan alleges that the PHS “intentionally delayed” his efforts to undergo a psychiatric evaluation that was necessary to have his license reinstated. He said the PHS insisted he get this evaluation out of state, even though he suggested three Boston-area board-certified experts.

The Board of Registration in Medicine eventually approved an evaluation by Patricia Recupero, MD, from the Law and Behavioral Health Program at the University of Rhode Island.

Dr Recupero’s November 2013 report determined that Dr Langan “is safe to return to the practice of medicine without further supervision,” that he “has an excellent prognosis and a very low risk of relapse,” and he “has not had an alcohol use, abuse or dependence problem.”

Many of the conflicts between the PHS and Dr Langan revolve around positive test findings, Dr Recupero notes in her letter.

It is “critical to understand” the inadequacies of such tests for physician monitoring for purposes of relapse, she notes. She added that the source of the alcohol in Dr Langan’s test results cannot be determined and that many products – mouthwash and hand sanitizers among them – can create a false-positive test.

Dr Langan acknowledges he used hand sanitizers in the course of his work as a physician. Owing to severe allergies, he also uses prescribed asthma inhalers, which contain alcohol as a propellant.

Dr Recupero also notes that “almost without exception,” Dr Langan’s test findings have been below the minimum level to declare a test positive and that positive findings “are not a sign of relapse.”

It was her opinion that, should he require additional treatment and supervision, the PHS should not be involved. A spokesperson for the PHS confirmed that it has not been involved in matters related to Dr Langan for at least 3 years.

Dr Langan said that since it suspended his medical license, the board has “engaged in a persistent pattern of ignoring my every reasonable effort at trying to be reinstated” and has “abused the administrative law process to accomplish this.”

Medscape Medical News contacted the Massachusetts medical board as well as its counsel, Deb Stoller, but received no response.

“Close to Homeless”

A memorandum to the Supreme Judicial Court, filed May 13, 2016, proposed a settlement between Dr Langan and the board. In return for the immediate reinstatement of Dr Langan’s license, he would be monitored for a maximum of 3 months by Dr Recupero and Timothy E. Wilens, MD, codirector of the Center for Addiction Medicine at MGH.

That memorandum was accompanied by letters from Dr Recupero and Dr Wilens agreeing to the terms, but according to Dr Langan, it has been “ignored.”

“The board did not acknowledge or address the proposals in any way,” said Dr Langan.

Dr Langan maintains that he “never ever” had any patient care or malpractice problems during his 15 years at MGH. In fact, his supervisors and colleagues reported that his work performance has been “superlative” on all counts, he said.

Many in the addiction medicine and psychiatric community support Dr Langan. He has letters from high-profile physicians in the field who verify that he is safe to practice medicine.

A first petition was filed in the Supreme Court on October 22, 2014, but the judge dismissed it because it had not been filed within the required 60-day period. Dr Langan’s most recent petition was filed July 3, 2015.

The past few years, he said, have taken a toll on his family. They have lost their home and health insurance because of his inability to practice his profession.

Disheartened by this latest setback, Dr Langan is looking into the possibility of becoming licensed in another state and leaving Massachusetts.

But Dr Langan has renewed hope. Under Massachusetts’ new Public Records Reform Law, which went into effect January 1, 2017, “the board was forced to comply with my request for records within 10 days,” and has done so, he said.

According to Dr Langan, these records show some irregularities that may bolster his case.

“A letter dated December 15, 2011, introducing exculpatory evidence was date-stamped January 17, 2012, almost 1 month after the hearing where it was submitted as evidence. All of the other documents had either illegible or absent date-stamps,” he said.

CONTINUE READING…

A PRAYER TO OUR CREATOR


1407508223765

A PRAYER TO OUR CREATOR

WE COME TOGETHER TODAY TO PRAISE YOUR ALMIGHTY GIFTS TO US…

YOU HAVE GIVEN US LIGHT FOR WARMTH,
MEADOWS OF FRESH FLOWERS,
AND HERBS,TO KEEP US HEALTHY,

3269972_orig

YOU GAVE US DARK TO SLEEP AND TO REST OUR
WEARY HEARTS AND MINDS FOR ANOTHER DAY,

YOU GAVE US BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO LOVE US,
AND CHILDREN TO CARRY ON OUR NEVER-ENDING
ENDEAVORS – TO CARRY OUT YOUR WILL ,
AS WE KNOW WE WILL NEVER ACCOMPLISH
THIS ALONE.

YOU GIVE US INTELLIGENCE TO BE ABLE TO
SEPARATE THE GOOD FROM THE EVIL,

DEAR FATHER,
GIVE US THIS DAY, OUR DAILY BREAD,
AND FORGIVE US OUR SINS,
AS WE FORGIVE ALL OTHERS,
AND
GIVE US THE STRENGTH, TO CARRY ON,
TO RECTIFY THE EVIL THAT TO WHICH WE HAVE
SUCCUMB,

TO BRING BACK THE MEADOWS,
THE FLOWERS AND TREE’S,
TO CONTINUE TO HEAR THE BIRD’S AND BEE’S!

BLESS THE HEMP LORD, AND KEEP IT STRONG,
AND ENABLE US, TO CARRY ON…

AMEN

ShereeKrider

Free KY Amish Farmer Samuel Girod


We the people ask the federal government to Take or explain a position on an issue or policy:

Free KY Amish Farmer Samuel Girod

Created by S.O. on January 27, 2017
Sign This Petition

Needs 99,999 signatures by February 26, 2017 to get a response from the White House

 

100,000 goal

The FDA is trying to put Sam in jail for 58 YEARS for a labeling infraction. Please sign and share this petition far and wide. His trial is 2/27/17 and we need 100,000 signatures to get Trump's attention before then!

Basic story here: http://www.davidgumpert.com/2783-2

Indictment here with explanations: http://www.kyfreepress.com/2017/01/fda-girod-indictment/

Local CBS affiliate story here: http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/WKYT-Investigation-Amish-farmer-in-jail…

Updates coming asap!

SOURCE LINK AND SIGN PETITION!