Tag Archives: politics

The 2016 Election will be remembered as the "No Confidence" Vote…

banner 1

 

 

Usually by this time the USMjParty has already picked someone to support in the Presidential Election. 

Notably, it has been Gary Johnson in at least the last two Presidential Elections.

This time is different.  This time it seems that there is absolutely no one running for office that I, myself, or my Colleagues, including Head Chair/Colorado Chair Bill Chengelis, aka Wayward Bill;   Pennsylvania Tom Johnson; Maryland Jeffrey Kabik; Vermont Cris Ericson; Hawaii Kenneth Peeler, Texas Chuck Miller aka Damagoman;  Oregon Jim Johnson; Utah Rob Hawthorne and Kentucky Sheree Krider (myself), that we have felt worthy of our support online or elsewhere.

A few people will most likely stand behind Gary Johnson, although, I, myself, have lost interest in him lately.  I wrote a short article a couple of months ago, “Lord, it’s time for another Election – What do we do now?”, in which I list just a few basic reasons why I DID NOT like each of the Candidates this year.  I was seriously hoping that my Colleagues would step up and speak out for someone…But that has not happened – at least so far, and it’s running pretty close to Election.  If that changes, there will be an update to this Newsletter sent out!

Speaking for myself, I would like to be able to go to the poll and enter a “Vote of No Confidence”, and force the system to start all over again.  Maybe we could do better if we tried again?  The only problem with that is the fact that since Obama’s term is up, I’m not sure how the Government would operate until another Election could be scheduled as this has never been done in the U.S. before.

A motion of no confidence (alternatively vote of no confidence, no-confidence motion, or (unsuccessful) confidence motion) is a statement or vote that a person or persons in a position of responsibility (government, managerial, etc.) is no longer deemed fit to hold that position: perhaps because they are inadequate in some respect, are failing to carry out obligations, or are making decisions that other members feel are detrimental.  LINK

In the United States, motions styled as “no confidence” are only symbolic and are rare.  In organizations that use Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), there is no motion of no confidence, although the assembly could adopt a motion expressing a lack of confidence in its leaders (i.e. a motion to censure).[11]  The United States Congress passed a no confidence motion against Secretary of State Dean Acheson in the 1950s[12] and considered one against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales,[13] but these motions are of symbolic effect only.  LINK

It would seem to me that it is time to add another option to the voting ticket – “NO CONFIDENCE”.  In effect, the low voter turnout is serving as a “no confidence” vote, as they refuse to cast their vote for anyone running on the ticket.  However, since these votes are not counted, they serve no purpose except to make sure that someone that is not worthy will get into Office.  We need to change that so that if people actually have “no confidence” in the people running for any given office they can readily make that known through the voting process rather than abstaining from the vote altogether.  I really believe that in this Election the “no confidence” vote would be the winner.

In the U.S. the Electoral Vote wins the Election.  Not the Popular Vote

According to Politics1 there are probably over 999 people running for the office of President in this years Election, though I did not bother to count them all!

There are virtually no qualifications required for anyone to run for the Office of the Presidency.  You would think that in this day of drug testing for employment and background checks for everything else as well, that when someone wanted to run for the highest office in the land that there would be a “background check” for felonies and a “drug test” – just because, well, everybody else has to have one so why shouldn’t the Government officials (and hopefuls) have to comply too?.  I bet that the list of people running for office would shrink dramatically if those two requirements alone were implemented.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I am sure, would “pass the tests” the end result would be the same thing we have now – Two more billionaire idiots who do not care about anything but their own bank accounts running for the highest office in the land…and a bunch of dumbasses running out to vote for them!  I would be one of them!  Although I doubt I will actually know who I am voting for until Election Day itself.  You can never be sure what will happen between now and then. 

Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

  • No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. LINK
  • So,

    From where I am watching, this Country is in very bad shape right now.  And the whole World, as well, is in a very uncompromising position.  The Atomic Clock is at “3 minutes to midnight”.  The news is getting worse everyday and that could be because it IS getting worse everyday, OR that the media as a whole is portraying it as such…Your guess is as good as mine! The Elections are now being overseen by the DHS and we are at constant threat of some kind of attack either by our own or by some other entity that may or may not even exist.  Food prices are rising steadily.   Children are being kidnapped right out from under us by CPS (Child Protective Services), a Government agency set up to take care of vulnerable children, not displace them.  Clean water is becoming more and more scarce.  There is absolutely no end to the trials and tribulations that may await us after the upcoming election. 

    The best thing I can think of to say about this event which will be remembered in history, is to think smart.  Very carefully review your options, and then vote with your conscience on Election Day 2016.  Our very lives may well depend upon what the Citizens of this great Country decide to do on Election Day!

    VOTE for the FREEDOM of CANNABIS!  This includes all forms of HEMP!  REPEAL PROHIBITION first and foremost to gain a momentum to start cleaning up the mess that has been made by the Justice Department and the prison industrial complex.  That would be a good start.  Freedom to plant and consume Cannabis on our own property without fear of arrest or seizure.  This order should come from the United Nations and followed by every Country involved with the U.N.

    True Freedom will begin to become a reality when total control of our food and water and medicinal plants are relinquished by the U.N., and therefore become “lawful” for us to possess and consume, as a people, once again.  This means that the U.N. must REPEAL those requirements and not take total control of our unalienable rights by the total regulation through the U.N. and Agenda 21 (Agenda 30).  Please note that I said “lawful” and NOT legal.  There is a difference, and that difference is the freedom to have unalienable rights that cannot be taken away by Government.  We must be very careful how we proceed from now on with this issue.  One wrong decision could enslave us forever. 

     

    While we are awaiting Peace and Prosperity, let us remember those who have been much less fortunate than ourselves, in any or all aspects of life, and give them help and kind words whenever possible.  Remember, if it hasn’t been you so far, it could be you in the future.

    pot leaf

    ShereeKrider

     

     

    Whatever your choice, Know your Cannabis Candidates and VOTE CANNABIS!

    “Your Vote Is Your Voice.” Speak wisely!, Wayward Bill

     

     

    US Navy practices killing North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un and taking out nuclear weapons in joint military drills

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/russian-television-warns-nuclear-war-amid-us-tensions/story?id=42773541

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5434

    http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/05/21/former-foster-parent-exposes-how-cps-kidnaps-kids-away-from-good-homes-puts-them-on-drugs/

    http://www.amtvmedia.com/new-water-use-laws-in-california-drought-may-be-permanent/

    http://www.naturalnews.com/051058_2030_Agenda_United_Nations_global_enslavement.html

    http://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/uphold-international-law/index.html

    http://www.usmjparty.com/repeal-prohibition/why-we-must-repeal-prohibition

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rights-and-freedoms-may-i-by-Sheree-Krider-Agenda_Drugs_Food_National-Dialog-160320-657.html

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/4/Rights-and-freedoms-may-i-by-Sheree-Krider-Agenda_Drugs_Food_National-Dialog-160320-657.html

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-13/what-exactly-agenda-21

    https://revmarythomasspears.wordpress.com/tag/laches/

    https://americansforcannabis.com/

    http://kyusmjparty.weebly.com/keary-prophet-freedom-to-garden–protection-of-nature.html

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/gallery/prescription-opioid-and-heroin-epidemic-awareness-week

    A Libertarian View of Cannabis and Drugs

    by Keith PrestonPolice State/Civil Liberties, Therapeutic State, Uncategorized • Tags: war on drugs

    By Sean Gabb

    Libertarian Alliance

    (Written early in the 21st century for a Roger Scruton publication)

    The libertarian position on drugs is simply stated. People should have the right to do with themselves as they please. This necessarily includes the right to take any drugs they please – for recreation or for medication. No one else automatically has the right to interfere with such choices, unless they can be shown to involve force or fraud or some attack on the whole community that threatens its dissolution.

    Taking drugs in consenting company is not an act of the first kind – it causes no one else the sort of harm against which they can legitimately demand protection. Nor is it an act of the second kind. We are told endlessly that drugs are a danger to social stability – that they lead to crime and degradation and so forth. There is no evidence for this claim.

    The British past provides a compelling example. Until 1920, drug use was uncontrolled. Between 1827 and 1859, British opium consumption rose from 17,000lb to 61,000lb. Workmen mixed it in their beer. Gladstone took it in his coffee before speaking. Scott wrote The Bride of Lammermoor under its influence. Dickens and Wilkie Collins were both heavy users. Cannabis and heroin were openly on sale. There was no social collapse. There were few deaths from taking drugs. Most deaths involving opium were individual accidents, and even these were negligible – excluding suicides, 104 in 1868 and thereafter to 1901 an annual average of 95. Hardly anyone even recognised that a problem might exist.

    The claim that drugs are bad for a society falls. The opposite is true. Criminalisation is bad. All the ills now blamed on drugs are more truly blamed on the illegality of drugs.

    When drugs are illegal, only criminals will supply them. And when criminals are allowed to dominate an entire market, they will be able – indeed required – to form extended, permanent structures of criminality that could never otherwise exist. They will then make drugs both expensive and dirty.

    Drugs will be expensive because bribes, transport inefficiencies, rewards of special risk, and so forth, all raise the costs of bringing drugs to market. Therefore much of the begging, prostitution and street crime that inconvenience Western cities.

    Drugs will be dirty because illegal markets lack the usual safeguards of quality. When a can of beer is stamped “8 per cent alcohol by volume”, this does not mean anything between 0.5 and 30 per cent. Nor will caustic soda be used to make it fizzy. Brewers have too much to lose by poisoning or defrauding customers. Drug dealers can afford to be less particular.

    Therefore frequent overdosing. Therefore poisonous additives. Therefore, the frequent transmission of aids even today by the sharing of dirty needles.

    Moving from the costs of the crime resulting from illegality, we come to the costs of enforcement. These also are massive.

    In the first place, the Police need to become a virtual Gestapo if they are to try enforcing laws that create no victim willing to complain and help in any investigation. They need powers to stop and search people and to search private homes that would never be necessary to stop things like burglary and murder. They need to get involved in entrapment schemes. They are exposed to offers of bribes frequently too large to be turned away. In one way or another, the War on Drugs leads to the corruption of every enforcement agency sent into battle.

    And that War cannot be won. The British Customs and Excise have no land border to worry about. They can track every boat and aeroplane that enters British territory. They have far wider powers of investigation than the regular Police. Even so, they themselves estimate that they stop fewer than three per cent of the drugs smuggled into the United Kingdom every year.

    In the second place, we have the war on money laundering. Since it is impossible to stop the import and sale of the drugs, attention has switched in recent years to stopping the profits of the trade from being enjoyed. The idea now is to confiscate these profits and use them for further investigations. However, before the money can be taken, it must be found. This requires surveillance and control over all financial transactions. Because any one of us might be a drug dealer trying to launder dirty money, we must all provide endless documentation when we open bank accounts. We are not allowed to pay in large amounts of cash without facing an inquisition from the bank clerks. Our banking details are open to official inspection virtually on demand.

    Just as with drugs, the war on money laundering is also a war on freedom. In this case, it frees the authorities from the requirements of due process. The confiscations of alleged drug money are increasingly made without any pretence of a trial. In America, civil asset forfeiture, has become legalised theft of the plainest kind. In Britain, we are moving towards a similar breach of Common Law rights.

    Moreover, the fact that our financial transactions can now be monitored gives the authorities an entirely new power over us. Its means of exercise are not yet in place. But we are moving fast into a world where all our purchases can be stored in a database. We can try to avoid this surveillance by using cash. But there are experiments in both Britain and America to see how anonymous cash can be replaced by cards that leave a record of every transaction.

    Therefore, on the grounds both of individual freedom and of social utility, there is no argument whatever for continuing with the present War on Drugs. It is a War that benefits only criminals and a few drug enforcement agencies, and that harms every one of the rest of us, whether or not we take drugs.

    CONTINUE READING…

    "Any sense as to what will happen with marijuana’s legal status if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is elected, given that they’re the presidential frontrunners? I would expect Hillary to continue the policy we’ve seen from the Obama administration. With Donald Trump, I have not the slightest idea."

     

    March 23, 2016

    CBD, Marijuana Banking and General Cannabis Reform: Q&A With NCIA’s Taylor West

     

    By John Schroyer

    Before landing her current job as deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, Taylor West spent more than a decade working in national politics, including four years in Washington DC.

    During that time, West gained insight she can use today to assess the likelihood of federal change on the cannabis front.

    Marijuana Business Daily sat down with West recently to get her thoughts on how the 2016 election could impact the cannabis industry and the chances of meaningful MJ reform for businesses.

    What kind of cannabis-related reforms do you think Congress or President Barack Obama could move on in the near future?

    I’m not optimistic that we’ll see much out of the president at this point. The president pretty clearly stated on multiple occasions now that he thinks this is an issue that needs to be dealt with by Congress.

    As much as I’d like to think he’ll have a change of heart, he’s said it enough times now that I think he’s sticking to it.

    From a congressional standpoint, there seems to be some movement in Congress around some kind of CBD legislation that protects businesses and patients that are involved with those products.

    The second piece where we’re most likely to see some movement is on banking. There is a possibility that we’ll see an amendment that says the Department of the Treasury cannot spend any of the funds being appropriated to them to go after financial institutions that serve legitimate cannabis businesses.

    We’ve seen bipartisan action on that in the past two years, and it’s probably our best bet for getting any kind of banking activity between now and at least the election.

    How would this type of banking reform affect the cannabis industry?

    It’s a little bit unclear whether an appropriations amendment on banking would have as dramatic an impact, as we need to create an industry-wide solution, in part because appropriations have to be renewed every year. So it wouldn’t be a guaranteed multi-year protection for banks, and some of them may continue to be risk-averse on it.

    But it would send a very clear message.

    When we look to the election this November, are there any potential changes at the federal level that could have a major impact on marijuana companies and pro-cannabis bills in Congress?

    There is the possibility that this year the Senate could change hands, from the GOP to the Democrats. That would be a huge deal, because that means all of the committee chairs change hands.

    One of the hardest things for our issues is simply getting a hearing on some of these standalone bills.

    We have good legislation that has been introduced in the House and the Senate, on banking, on tax reform, we have the CARERS Act.

    But because the committees in which they’re sitting are chaired by Republican senators who are very opposed to (marijuana), they have a very difficult time getting a hearing, much less a vote.

    Any sense as to what will happen with marijuana’s legal status if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is elected, given that they’re the presidential frontrunners?

    I would expect Hillary to continue the policy we’ve seen from the Obama administration.

    With Donald Trump, I have not the slightest idea. As with most things, he’s been a bit all over the map. He hasn’t been as clearly against legalization as some other Republicans, but he also isn’t exactly laying out a clear philosophy of how he would handle it.

    CONTINUE READING ARTICLE….

    The New Peaceful Pot Head Revolution: Or, Why I’m Going To Infiltrate The Democrats & Run As One Of Them

    Cris Ericson

     

     

    By CrisEricson2016 | Fri, February 26 2016

    S.241 Vermont marijuana Bill does NOT make marijuana legal like alcoholic beverages: (1) because you can brew your own alcoholic beverage at home in Vermont, and this bill does NOT allow you to plant a seed in the ground and grow your own marijuana at home; (2) because the state government does not raid your home and count your cans of beer, but in the new Bill, S. 241, the state will raid your home and count every single seed you have, or have planted, and send you to prison if you are not one of the chosen few to pay a high price for and receive a license to commercially grow and sell marijuana.
    S.241 was written for the express purpose of making the rich even richer, and sending the poor to prison for the benefit of the private-for-profit prison industry.

    PUBLIC NOTICE to DEMOCRATIC PARTY in VERMONT

    I live in the area of Windsor County just north of Windham County, and there are a lot of low income people who will be devastated by S. 241 proposed marijuana bill because when marijuana is legal, they will be tempted, but they can NOT afford to pay for it.

    Until marijuana is legal to grow your own at home for your own personal use, without the government prying on your private property to count your plants, I will continue to campaign for legalization.
    Because the Democratic Party has taken over the issue of marijuana legalization, whereas I started it in 2002, the first time I was on the ballot for Governor, I will run in the Democratic Primary this election season to off-set the injustice being brought down on low income Vermonters.

    The whole current marijuana bill is intended to make a few farmers and Lounge merchants vastly wealthy, while the tax dollars will be spent hounding and stalking poor people and threatening them if they so much as plant one seed.

    Did you know this is how the American Revolution began?

    The King decided that one company could sell Tea, he made one company a monopoly.
    So, the Settlers dressed up as Indians and dumped the Tea into Boston Harbor.
    If Peter Shumlin gets his way and does the equivalent of allowing monopolies, allowing only a few businesses to farm marijuana and sell marijuana, then you are inciting a riot, you may be inciting the next Boston Tea Party, only it might be tons of marijuana dumped into Lake Champlain off the Ferry.

    If I lose the Democratic Primary, I will be on the ballot for the General Election for the Marijuana Party, of course.

    This is a battle of the rich against the poor, and the Democratic Party is in conspiracy with Governor Peter Shumlin to extort money from people for marijuana, rather than allowing them to plant a seed in the ground and grow their own.

    Also, of course, your conspiracy with Peter Shumlin includes violating federal marijuana laws; and I might start a group to file an action directly with the Supreme Court of the United States which is allowed when a State law violates the U.S. Constitution – and I think we might have a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution guarantee of equal rights under the law: how can you possibly think it is alright for one man to profit growing marijuana, while another man may be imprisoned for the same thing?

    And, in keeping with the Spirit of the American Revolution, you must know you are violating the U.S. Constitution in conspiracy with Peter Shumlin for making laws that require someone else, other than an elected official, to make rules and regulations to use the tax dollars collected;  that is clearly taxation without representation.

    Cris Ericson

    http://democracy.com/vermont
    SOURCE LINK:  http://ibrattleboro.com/sections/politics/new-peaceful-pot-head-revolution-or-why-im-going-infiltrate-democrats-run-one-them
    SB 241 VT LINK:  http://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2016/S.241

    Rule or Law? The Difference Matters For Your Marijuana Business

    By Daniel Shortt on October 28, 2015 Posted in Legal Issues, States

    This is for federal bills, but it nicely illustrates how complicated the process can be.

    Laws are different than rules and understanding the difference between the two can be important to your marijuana business’s bottom-line. I will use Washington State as the example.

    In Washington, laws are generally enacted through initiative or through the legislative process. Initiatives allow voters to pass laws directly by popular vote. Washington legalized recreational marijuana by popular vote — Initiative 502 in 2012. The legislative process requires a bill pass through both Washington’s Senate and House of Representatives and then garner the Governor’s signature before becoming law. Recently, SB 5052 and HB 2136 were passed through the legislative process and established new Washington State laws regarding medical cannabis.

    As is the case with other states with “robust regulation,” Washington cannabis businesses are also subject to rules created by state agencies without the political protections provided by initiatives and the legislative process. State agencies, like the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB), are government entities given the power to regulate and govern a specific area or industry. These agencies are typically run by unelected officials. Agencies arguably create more efficient government because they a focus on one discreet area or industry, with expertise not usually available to legislatures and lawmakers.

    A rule is an agency order, directive, or regulation that applies to the public generally. Rules are similar to laws because those who violate them may be subject to penalties and sanctions. Rules can and do change constantly, whereas laws tend to remain more static. The LCB’s rule-making process may begin with an individual’s petition to the LCB, but often the agency itself initiates the process against a cannabis business if it sees a need to do so.

    To enact a rule, the LCB must publish notice of the rule-making in the Washington State Register. The LCB then holds a public hearing at which citizens are given an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. Citizens can also submit written comments to the LCB about the proposed rule. The LCB must consider the public comments and then issue an order of adoption, which explains the new rule and the basis for its adoption.  Agencies can also institute emergency rules, which are not subject to the above requirements and become effective immediately. These emergency rules only last for up to 120 days and they must be in response to some immediate issue or danger. The Washington Department of Health recently issued emergency rules for medical marijuana, for instance.

    Despite similarities to laws, LCB rules are not subject to the same type of political recourse as laws. This is significant because LCB regulations have huge impacts on the cannabis marketplace. For example, in Initiative 502, voters enacted residency requirements that restrict issuance of cannabis licenses only to those who can demonstrate having spent a certain amount of time in the state (see here and here). The Initiative never mentions “True Party of Interest.” In its rule making though, the LCB created the term, True Party of Interest, and defined it, and now applies the residency requirements to any party deemed to be a True Party of Interest. The definition for a “True Party of Interest” includes all investors and the spouses of any shareholders or principal. Though never contemplated by the voters, the “True Party of Interest” rule significantly restricts the marijuana marketplace by making it difficult for out-of-state investors to put their funds into Washington State cannabis businesses. Moreover, Washington voters who disagree with the “True Party of Interest” rule have little recourse beyond lobbying to get this rule changed.

    One of the best ways for citizens to get involved with LCB rule making is to comment during the agency’s rule-making process. Currently the LCB and the Washington State Department of Health are holding hearings regarding medical marijuana regulations. If you care about the future of the marijuana industry in Washington State you should make your voice heard at one or more of these hearings.

    CONTINUE READING…

    By Gatewood Galbraith From the Upcoming Special Activist Issue of Cannabis Culture Magazine, March-April, #65. (2006)

    Kentucky Politics / Kentuckians for Gatewood Galbraith

    Gatewood for Governor, Kentucky
    Category: News and Politics
    Gatewood for Governor, Kentucky
    By Gatewood Galbraith

     

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GatewoodGalbraith .  Mark Wireman 2008.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	48.6 KB 
ID:	18455 From the Upcoming Special Activist Issue of Cannabis Culture Magazine, March-April, #65.


    Howdy Folks! My name is Gatewood Galbraith.

    My running mate Mark Wireman and I are candidates for the May 2007 Democratic Party Primary; I’m seeking nomination for Governor of Kentucky, and he for Lieutenant Governor. Of course, the winner of the battle between Democrats then faces a Republican in the Fall 2007 Kentucky General Election.

    I have run for Governor of Kentucky three times. Twice, in the Democratic Primaries in 1991 and 1995, the Party froze me out because I championed cannabis as a cash crop for our farmers. In 1999, I ran as the Reform Party candidate in the November General Election and received 15.3 percent of the vote – after Jesse Ventura, Ross Perot, and Bernie Sanders, it was the best showing of any third Party candidate in America for the past 50 years. My last statewide race was in 2003 as an Independent for Attorney General. I received 110,00 votes (10 percent) despite the fact that I only went to 12 of our 120 counties and spent less then $20,000. (That’s 40 percent of the votes I need to win this 2007 Primary.) Everyone who heard our message of personal privacy, education, and self-determination supported it, but we simply weren’t able to adequately fund the effort. We must not allow that to happen this time.

    I rejoined the Democratic Party in 2006 because the current Republican Governor has been such a disappointment (he was indicted!) that the smart money says the Democrat nominee will be the next Governor. The leadership of Kentucky’s Democratic Party is up in the air given the failures of the past, so should Mark and I win this Primary, we would resurrect the Democratic Party to once again be the voice of the People.

    Ours is a multi-issue campaign focusing on Issues and Solutions. The "Issues" in Kentucky are poverty and illiteracy. In the past six years, Kentucky has gone from being the 10th poorest state to being 6th poorest. We have lost $2,100 in median income during those same six years ($36,400 annual average to $34,300). That’s going backwards, folks! But it’s not hard to see why: in 1991, over 68 percent of our state budget was for Education; in 2006, it was 60 percent. At the same time, we have added thousands of prison cells throughout the state and call it "growing the economy". Our politicians would rather imprison us than educate us! What farce this War on Drugs has been!

    We have "Solutions" for these problems. Immediately, and until the laws are changed, cannabis should be the lowest priority of law enforcement with no arrests for possession. As soon as possible, I would like to see it decriminalized. Citizens arrested for "hard" drugs should be treated for their addiction, not imprisoned. We must educate our children – not only in the scholastic sense, but also about their freedoms and their duties as citizens to defend them. Our nation is being "dumbed down" about how the American Revolution sought to give individuals the tools of a Constitutional form of government to allow them to remain free. We need to re-ignite the American Revolution by taking the reins of government from the hands of the special interests and returning them to We, the People.

    To encourage education I propose the Commonwealth Incentive, whereby every High School graduate in Kentucky gets a $5,000 voucher for books, tuition and fees at any institution of further learning within Kentucky – be it truck-driving school, cosmetology, electronics training, vocational training, community colleges or the University of Kentucky. No spending on pizza, rent, beer or other creature comforts; money is only spent when the student decides what they want to learn, and where they want to learn it, encouraging young people to stay in school. This should also attract vocational schools to the state. We also believe it should be mandatory that students in grades 4 through 12 should take mandatory civics and American Government courses – the current system is failing to truly educate out youth about our US history, rights, voting, politicians, and democracy! As for the environment, which our young people also need: we support tax incentives for our existing state industries to establish and maintain state-of-the-art environmental compliance with all regulations.

    These and other facets of our platform and positions are expressed in my autobiography, The Last Free Man in America: Meets The Synthetic Subversion, available online at Amazon.com or by contacting us. It recounts my efforts over the past 35 years to change the cannabis laws and my friendships with Jack Herer, Marc Emery, and Willie Nelson (among many others). Willie has done three benefit concerts for me; he and I appeared on the front and back covers of the January 1991 issue of High Times. That was when I introduced Willie to biofuels. I drove my hemp oil fueled Mercedes across Kentucky as part of my campaign, the first time in 50 years that an automobile powered by hemp oil had traveled on a US highway. Now Willie is leading the biofuel pack with WN biodiesel. What a guy! I tell you all this because freedom loving people everywhere – and particularly my favorites, the cannabis community – should be aware that my election in this year’s campaign would be a giant step toward positive change not only in Kentucky where the benefits will be immediate, but nationwide as the effects of our changes become apparent.

    Because the two largest newspapers and various other media in Kentucky have boycotted me in the past, we anticipate that they will do so again in this race. Therefore, we must raise sufficient finances to air our message by traditional means, to mount a winning campaign. We ask for your support in the form of a contribution; $100 is less than the court costs of speeding tickets in many states, so $100 spent towards actually changing laws is money well directed. If you can send $1,000 (the maximum allowable), we will be greatly honored, as we will be by donations of any amount. We can’t accept cash, but please send your check or money order to: Galbraith for Governor, P.O. Box 1438, Lexington, Kentucky 40588. We need your name, address, occupation and telephone number. You can also contribute online at Gatewood.com. (Election laws prevent Canadians or other foreigners from making donations to American campaigns so, unfortunately, we can only accept money from US citizens.)

    Folks, I know you are aware of others who may have run for public office on the cannabis issue alone, but this campaign is much more extensive than that. Cannabis is a forefront matter in this race because it is interwoven with other real issues Americans and Kentuckians face in modern day-to-day life. No other candidate of our persuasion has more command of these other issues than I do, which makes me qualified to be Governor. All we lack right now is the funding and public support, and I’m asking you to please pitch in. God Bless You All.

    s   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TheLastFreeManInAmerica Autobiography of Gatewood Galbraith.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	43.4 KB 
ID:	18453 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TheGenuineGatewoodGalbraith.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	193.4 KB 
ID:	18454

    Sheree Krider
    http://ky.usmjparty.org
    Louisville, KY
    Email: ShereeKrider@usmjparty.org

    SOURCE LINK

    Lawmakers, sign on now, to repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA).

    JackieTreehorn

    Joined: Sep 2005

    USA TX, USA

    Posted: 10/20/2008 3:04:42 PM EDT

    Lawmakers, sign on now, to repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA).

    Without this authority, the ill-conceived War On Drugs (WOD) stops in its tracks. No one has talked about the War On Drugs for a long time. It has not gone away.

    We still squander scarce resources on the fight against ourselves, at a time when foreign enemies are at the gate. Enough is enough, too much is too much, and more of this futile war would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility. Do now, for the War On Drugs, what the 21st Amendment did for the 18th, and with it, alcohol prohibition. Stop throwing good money after bad.
    We should have learned a lesson from alcohol prohibition, namely that it doesn’t work.
    Isn’t there enough blood in the streets already, without continuing to shoot ourselves in the feet?

    Do we really need to ruin the lives of so many of our own children, perhaps on the theory it is for their own good?

    The CSA is unconstitutional. The CSA never had a constitutional amendment to enable it, like the 18th amendment enabled alcohol prohibition. The drug warriors have, so far, gotten away with an end run, subverting the lack of constitutional authority.

    An authority over Interstate Commerce provides a pretext of constitutionality. Any excuse is better than none. So, how is that interstate commerce going, these days? Why would a bankrupt treasury distain to derive revenue from its number one cash crop? The anti-capitalist policy inhibits small farmers from cultivating for a taxed market, and gifts a tax-free monopoly to outlaws, some of whom may be friends of our enemies. This is not what the founders had in mind when they authorized meddling in interstate commerce. Lets bring the underground economy into the taxed economy.

    The Supreme Court got it wrong in Gonzales V Raich. Good on Clarence Thomas for noticing that the so-called constitutionality of the law is a mockery.
    www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

    How did we get this CSA? Was there an informed debate on the floor? Did the substances ever get their day in court? What congressman then, or now, would admit to knowing a thing or two about LSD?

    The lawmakers have never wanted to know more than it is politically safe to be against it.

    Governments around the world ignore fact-checkers and even their own reports.

    Forgive them, Lord, they make it their business to know not what they do.

    Common sense tells us that personal experience deepens the understanding of issues. Personal experience is a good thing. But we herd the experienced to the hoosegow. We keep them out of jobs. The many who avoid detection must live double lives.
    The congressmen who passed the CSA probably don’t even get it that they deny freedom of religion to those who prefer a non-placebo as their sacrament of communion.

    Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom, says the First Amendment. But they did.

    Many of the prohibited substances provide access to unique mental states. You can’t say your piece, if you can’t think it up. You can’t think it up, if you are not in a receptive state of mind. Neither the Constitution, nor its amendments, enumerates a power of government to prevent access to specific states of mind. How and when did the government acquire this power, to restrict consciousness and thought?

    Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, says the First Amendment. But they did.

    What would happen if the CSA was enforced one hundred percent? What if all the civil disobedient turned in notarized confessions tomorrow? That is a double digit demographic. Even after years of spending more on prisons than on schools, the prisons don’t have that kind of sleeping capacity. Converting taxpayers into wards of the state mathematically increases the tax burden on the remainder. Higher tax burdens are not what the doctor is ordering at this time.

    None of these substances are alleged to be as harmful as prison is. Granny’s justice is a saner benchmark. A kid caught with cigarettes must keep on smoking them, right then and there, until he or she has wretched. Drugs are sometimes accused of causing paranoia, but it is prohibition’s threat of loss of liberty, employment, and estate, that introduces paranoia. Apparently it is true that some of these substances do cause insanity, but the insanity is only in the minds of those who have never tried them.

    There shall not be cruel and unusual punishment, says the Eighth Amendment. But here it is, in the CSA.

    In the 1630’s, the pilgrims wrote home glowingly that the native hemp was superior to European varieties. Now, the government pretends it has a right to prohibit farmers from the husbandry of native hemp, but it so doesn’t. Could an offender get a plea-bargain, by rolling over on someone higher up in the organization? The farmer does nothing to nature’s seed that God Himself does not do when He provides it rain, sunlight, and decomposing earth. How can it be a crime to do as God does? Is the instigator to get off scot-free, while small users are selectively prosecuted?

    God confesses, in Genesis 11-12, it was He who created the seed-bearing plants, on the second day. Then, He saw they were good. There you have it, the perpetrator shows no remorse about creating cannabis or mushrooms. Neither has He apologized for endowing humans with sensitive internal receptor sites which activate seductive mental effects in the presence of the scheduled molecules. Book Him, Dano.

    Common Law must hold that humans are the legal owners of their own bodies. Men may dispose of their property as they please. It is none of Government’s business which substances its citizens prefer to stimulate themselves with. Men have a right to get drunk in their own homes, be it folly or otherwise. The usual caveats, against injury to others, or their estates, remain in effect.

    The Declaration of Independence gets right to the point. The Pursuit Of Happiness is a self-evident, God-given, inalienable, right of man. The War On Drugs is, in reality, a war on the pursuit of happiness. Too bad the Declaration of Independence is not worth much in court.

    Notwithstanding the failure of the Supreme Court to overturn the CSA, lawmakers can and should repeal the act. Lawmakers, please get to it now, in each house, without undue delay. Wake up.

    Who has the guts to put America first and not prolong the tragedy?
    We don’t need the CSA. The citizenry already has legal recourse for various injuries to itself and its estate, without invoking any War On Drugs. We should stop committing resources to ruin the lives of peaceful people who never injured anyone. If someone screws up at work, fire him or her for the screw-up. The Books still have plenty of laws on them, without this one.

    Without the CSA, the empty prisons could conceivably be used to house the homeless. Homeland security might be able to use the choppers that won’t be needed for eradication. Maybe the negative numbers that will have to be used to bottom-line our legacy to the next generation can be less ginormous.

    Cannabis has a stronger claim to the blessing of the state than do the sanctioned tobacco and alcohol. Cannabis does not have the deadly lung cancer of tobacco, nor the puking, hangover, and liver cirrhosis of alcohol. To the contrary, cannabis shows promise as an anti-tumor agent. Nor is cannabis associated with social problems like fighting and crashing cars. Cannabis-intoxication is usually too mellow for fighting, and impaired drivers typically drive within the limits of their impairment. The roads will be safer, if slower, for every driver that switches from drink to smoke. Coffee drinkers cause more serious accidents by zipping in and out of traffic and tailgating. To assure public safety on the road, cops need a kit to assess driving competence and alertness objectively. Perhaps science can develop a virtual reality simulator. Hopefully it could also detect drowsy, Alzheimer’s, and perhaps road-raging, drivers.

    John McCain should recuse himself on the CSA repeal issue, due to the conflict of interest of potential competition for his family beer franchise. Both candidates have promised to end ‘failed programs’, but neither has issued a timetable, or a roadmap, for standing down on the WOD.

    The debate how a crippled USA can manage ‘the two wars’ is blind. Hello, there are three, not two, wars. The War On Drugs has not let up, after 38 years of failure. Its costs are in the ballpark of the foreign wars. There is no lower-hanging, riper, or higher yielding budgetary fruit than to stop this third war, cold turkey. We are making new enemies faster than we are killing the old ones. We are losing old friends. In this national crisis of global humiliation, we should cut a little slack to those who still love the United States of America, no matter what they may be smoking.

    Stave off national meltdown, by repeal of the CSA, this week, if possible. TIA.

    Without the War On Drugs, Americans can come together as a people in ways that are not possible with so many of our best and brightest under threat of disenfranchisement.

    http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/773950_Call_for_Repeal_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act_of_1970.html

    400-plus People Running for U.S. President

     

    usmjpIN

     

     

     

    Friday, June 26, 2015 :: Staff infoZine

    By Quentin Misiag – Thirteen Republicans. Four Democrats.

    Washington, DC – infoZine – Scripps Howard Foundation Wire – A growing list of contenders have tossed their hats in the political ring for the 2016 race to the White House.
    But the official tally spans longer than the 17 most talked-about political brands of this cycle.

    Like over 400 candidates longer.

    As of Thursday, 419 Americans seeking the presidency had filed a Form 2 statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. In the last week alone, 18 new candidates have joined the lineup.

     

    Jill Stein, a 2016 Green Party presidential candidate, discusses her “Power to the People Plan” campaign platform during a press conference Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington. SFHWire photo by Quentin Misiag

    Thomas Keister, a blogger and author from Clarksville, Ind., is lighting up his long-shot White House bid on two decidedly different levels: promoting marijuana bong rips and trolling New York business magnate Donald Trump on Twitter.

    Over 1,000 miles away, Silvia Stagg of Miami is mounting her campaign on the niche topic of life-extension. Stagg favors expanded research and medicinal techniques in hospitals that would slow or reverse the human aging process.

    Keister and Stagg represent a narrow sliver of afterthought politicians who are choosing to go head-to-head against the 17 mainstream choices thus far: Democrats Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders, as well as Republicans Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Donald Trump.

    Most filed as independents, while many are Republicans or Democrats.

    Others are far more tongue in cheek.

    William Richardson of Las Vegas registered with the FEC under the Helluva Party.

    Under the National Born Citizen Party, there are Christopher Strunk and Harold Van Allen, both of New York State.

    There’s no deadline to file as a candidate with the FEC, but states have explicit filing deadlines so they can prepare ballots.

    Politicians officially transition from presumptive to declared candidate when they send in FEC forms.

    “You can file at any time, but once you raise or spend $5,000, you’re required to file,” Christian Hilland, an FEC spokesman, said.
    The Constitution says presidents must be at least 35 years old when they take office and be natural born U.S. citizens.

    Forty-five states and the District of Columbia allow presidential write-in candidates. Hawaii, Nevada, South Dakota, South Carolina and Oklahoma do not.
    By sheer number, these underdog candidates have 2016’s most popular pols surrounded.

    On the other hand, most lack the deep-pocket allies who can reel in big dollars, according to a review of FEC records.
    Take Keister, 39, the founder of DasUberBlog!
    “I have not raised a single dollar since declaring on Jan. 1 that I was getting into this,” said Keister, the lone candidate running in the American Marijuana Party.
    Keister is one distant contender with a noticeable social media presence. He has more Twitter followers than Chaffee, the former Rhode Island senator and governor who launched his bid June 3.
    Asked about which of the leading pols he and his campaign platform could beat, Keister fired off: “Most of them.”
    Several, including Keister, said they plan to skip Iowa and New Hampshire, a pair of the early presidential picking states seen as crucial to locking up early voter momentum.
    “I have not raised a single dollar since declaring on Jan. 1 that I was getting into this,” Keister said.
    Keister’s launch came largely from what he called a prime example of government gridlock: Construction of the new Ohio River Bridges Project in greater Louisville, Ky., that was the culmination of 50 years of legal wrangling.

     

    And if it seems that interest in running for title of America’s leading political leader has surged in recent years, that’s because it has.
    The number of candidates has already surpassed the 2012 election list, when 417 people filed during the two-year presidential reporting process.
    In 2004, 224 people filed as a presidential candidates. Four years later, that number grew to 367, an increase of more than 60 percent.
    Leonard Steinhorn, a professor of public communication and history at American University, attributes the climb over the last four election cycles to the ease of information access spurred largely by the growth in mobile email and the “sharing society.”

    “This is the sort of the media age we’re living in where everybody has a chance to tell their story,” said Steinhorn, whose expertise includes the presidency, strategic communication and the media. “Does it mean it they have a prayer to win? No, not at all.”

    Although they are dark horse choices, some of these lesser-known candidates have found some success in past political pursuits.
    Vermin Supreme of New Hampshire, placed third in the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 2012 with 833 votes. Supreme, who is known for wearing a boot as a hat and carrying a large toothbrush, hinged his campaign on zombie apocalypse awareness and time travel research.

    “I’m not holding my breath, but I’m not discounting it either,” Stein said.

    Take Jill Stein, a darling of the Green Party. On Tuesday she launched her 2016 bid in an attempt to rekindle the trail she tread four years ago.

    “I’m not holding my breath, but I’m not discounting it either,” Stein, a physician, said of her pursuit, dubbed the “Power to the People Plan.” She announced in an address to reporters at the National Press Club.
    Stein’s newest platform is based mainly on the Green Party New Deal, an ambitious road map for domestic energy independence. It would provide millions of jobs by transitioning to 100 percent clean renewable energy by 2030, she said.

    And then there’s Stagg, who said political alliances with high-level Republicans are the necessary backbone for gaining real political traction.
    Stagg said she has spent years courting Rubio, Paul and Fiorina at conservative meet-ups, including the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.
    But now, she says she’s ready to take them on in her own attempt to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    “I have Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, who will never institute socioeconomic programs,” Stagg, a backer of raising the U.S. minimum wage equal to an annual salary of $100,000, said. “It’s easy to say, ‘Hi how are you, Hillary?’ and before you know it, they’ve got your cash in their hand.”

    Should her bid take hold, Stagg said she would make the American dollar the worldwide currency, enact a flat federal income tax of 10 percent and work to eliminate poverty in the U.S.
    While many long-shot choices have kept to establishing their brands on social media exclusively, some, including Arthur Herbert Brooks Jr., have created websites to help foster a stronger following.
    His site has all the basics of a typical online presidential presence. A tagline, “Everyday People for America,” is clearly defined, and donation tabs and an official campaign announcement video dot the page.
    However the website features stock images and incomplete details, including broken links.

    In his June 8 filing to the FEC, Paul DeLong of Williamsport, Pa., outlined his former job as a grassroots team leader. He claimed he is a veteran campaign operative for the Bush political family.
    In a letter to FEC officials, DeLong said: “I feel that I am more than capable of running my own campaign at this time once I announce myself to some Republican Committees. I am hoping that one of them may pick me up.”

    In the face of disappointing support, at least one politician has decided to pull out of the pursuit.

    Brian Cole, a Pennsylvania Republican who rolled out his 2016 presidential plan five years ago, recently disbanded the endeavor.
    Cole said he will now direct his attention to becoming a U.S. ambassador to Iceland, Chile, Spain, Norway or Madagascar.

    But with party names such as American Marijuana Party and Democratic-Farm-Labor, these far less known candidates say they’ve got some political bite to them and aren’t backing down.
    At least, not yet.

    “The only problem I have is getting myself a vice president,” Stagg said.

    CONTINUE READING….

    FBI must explain prioritizing environmental activists on its terrorist lists – journalist (VIDEO)

    Reuters / Danny Moloshok

    The public deserves to know why the FBI singles out environmental or left-wing activists – some from decades ago – as top terrorist suspects on its most wanted lists, as opposed to violent right-wing fugitives, journalist Will Potter told RT.

    Potter, an investigative journalist and author of "Green is the New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege," recently wrote a post on his website that questions the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s terrorism priorities, especially in light of the agency’s well-known past abuses. He noted that all of those on the agency’s Most Wanted Domestic Terrorism list are either leftists who committed crimes at least 30 years ago, or environmental/animal right’s activists accused of property crimes, not physical violence.

     

    "Over and over again, we’re seeing this overreaching of FBI responsibilities, and going after protest groups and politicizing their duties," he told RT in an interview. "It’s time for all of us to examine how those powers are being used, and I think it’s time for a congressional inquiry as well."

    Potter pointed to recent revelations exposing the FBI’s unlawful surveillance and intelligence gathering aimed at "extremist" environmental activists opposed to the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which was called "vital to the security and economy of the United States" in FBI documents.

    "I think the most important takeaway (of the FBI’s domestic terror list) is not the individual crimes or what these people are accused of, but the bigger priorities that the FBI is putting forward," he said.

    "The purpose of this list is to put a giant spotlight on what the FBI wants to focus its resources on. And when the FBI is focusing resources on environmentalists, or people who are accused of destroying property, or political activists from the ’70s, that means they’re not focusing resources on today’s criminals and actual right-wing groups that have murdered people and sent anthrax, (and) murdered abortion doctors. That should really give everybody pause of how our taxpayer money is being spent."

    The targeting of environmental activists is no accident, Potter explained. It’s part of the FBI’s current mission and not an aberration, especially in an era of federal legislation, such as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a sweeping law that labels and punishes as "eco-terrorism" numerous political activities or civil disobedience conducted in the name of animal rights. The law covers action that "damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property" or "places a person in reasonable fear" of injury.

    "It may seem like isolated incidents where you have these environmentalists on a most-wanted list, or the FBI is talking about animal-rights activists, but these are really systemic problems."

    Potter said he wants to know how the infamous J. Edgar Hoover-era FBI spying programs, which once targeted Black Panther members and anti-war activists, have evolved to include today’s targets despite public admonishments of invasive, repressive surveillance operations.

    "It’s important to remember that the FBI has a history of abuses like this," he said. "That’s why accountability and oversight are so important. During the 1970s and ’80s, there was surveillance and harassment, a program called COINTELPRO spied upon and disrupted social movements. And after that, there were congressional hearings. (Surveillance of activists) was supposed to stop, it was all over with. That was the message we were told. I think now we have to revisit that and find out actually what’s the scope of what’s taking place today, whether those tactics evolved into something new."

    Potter said the imbalance in the FBI’s most wanted list is exemplified by left-wing environmental or animal-rights activists, who have been included based on property crimes that have not harmed a human being, while right-wing militia members who have perpetrated violence on people are not on the list.

    "The crimes that the people on this most wanted list are accused of, some of them are serious property crimes," he said, "but it’s important to point out that in the history of these groups, no one has ever been hurt, and that’s never been their intention, whereas with right-wing groups in particular, militias, sovereign citizens, anti-abortion groups, that’s been the explicit purpose.

    "You can’t ignore these things when you’re prioritizing crime. And why is that? Someone at the FBI needs to explain their justification for not including those groups while focusing so much resources on environmentalists."

    Economic damage, not physical injury or loss of life, has guided the FBI’s so-called "anti-terrorism" operations against environmental activists, Potter said.

    “What started as a corporate-driven agenda to label protesters as eco-terrorists has become institutionalized,” he told Vice last month. “This has really become standard operating procedure, and I think that’s what’s most disturbing about this.”

    In January, a man sentenced to 19 years in prison for conspiring to commit "environmental terrorism" was granted early release after nine years of incarceration once it came to light that prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense. Eric McDavid’s defense had claimed FBI entrapment in the case, saying an agency informant housed, fed, and encouraged McDavid and co-defendants to plot illegal activities, while using FBI surveillance equipment to relay their interactions back to the authorities.

    CONTINUE READING AND VIDEO…