Friday, September 23, 2016

Don't let them bust medical marijuana dispensaries support the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment

For the past two years, Congress has passed annual spending bills which included a provision protecting those who engage in the state-sanctioned use and dispensing of medical cannabis from undue prosecution by the Department of Justice. However, members of Congress have yet to taken action to reauthorize this provision and therefore the law is set to expire at the end of the month.

The amendment, known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, maintains that federal funds can not be used to prevent states from “implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.”

Just last month, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the amendment, opining that federal officials are not permitted to engage in the criminal prosecution of those who are involved in activity related to medical marijuana absent evidence that the defendants are in clear violation of state law. However, this protection ceases to exist if the provision is not renewed — putting hundreds of thousands of patients and providers at risk.

Please enter your zip code below to contact your federally elected officials and urge them to move quickly to reauthorize the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment and to keep these important patient protections in place.

To sign petition

Congresswoman kills vets

Illinois Rep. Tammy Duckworth, who is also running for the Senate this November against Senator Mark Kirk, was campaigning instead of attending to grave issues at the Department of Veterans Affairs while serving as the department’s assistant secretary. Records provided by Kirk’s re-election campaign show while the VA scandal regarding outrageous waiting times and mistreatment for the nation’s combat veterans was unraveling, Duckworth, a veteran herself, traveled extensively to campaign for Democratic leaders in the Senate.

In March 2010, Duckworth mixed official travel with political travel as she campaigned for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid’s re-election. Although expenses for Duckworth’s trip totaled $3,955, Reid’s campaign only reimbursed the VA $813.97 initially. In addition, the VA owed Reid’s campaign $105.33, according to the Office of General Counsel Review, causing Duckworth to keep $708.44 of the reimbursement. Reid’s political action committee (PAC)—Searchlight Leadership PAC—donated $3,500 to Duckworth’s House campaign in 2012, and $10,000 to Duckworth’s Senate campaign this year.

A year later, Duckworth traveled to Montana to campaign for Senator John Tester, who won re-election the following year. Tester returned the favor and donated $2,400.40 to Duckworth’s 2012 House campaign. This year, Tester’s PAC—Treasure State Pac—donated $10,000 to Duckworth’s Senate campaign.

As Duckworth collected the dough, problems at her agency were only becoming sticky. In 2009 the VA disclosed that, due to poorly disinfected equipment, at least 10,000 veterans who underwent colonoscopies in Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida were exposed to potential viral diseases. Thirty-seven tested positive for two forms of hepatitis, while six tested positive for HIV. Then-VA Director Eric Shinseki initiated disciplinary actions and required hospital directors to provide written verification of compliance with VA operating procedures. Shinseki resigned in May 2014.

In 2011, as Duckworth campaigned for Tester, nine Ohio veterans tested positive for hepatitis after routine dental work at a VA clinic in the state. A dentist at the VA medical center in Dayton acknowledged not washing his hands or even changing gloves between patients for 18 years. That same year, in Pennsylvania, there was an outbreak of Legionnaires' Disease at the VA hospital in Oakland, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Over the next two years, at least five veterans died. Two years later, the newspaper disclosed VA records which showed evidence of widespread contamination of the Oakland facility since 2007.

According to a CNN report, at least 19 veterans died at VA hospitals in 2010 and 2011 due to delayed waiting times for simple medical screenings like endoscopes and colonoscopies. According to a VA internal document acquired by the network, 82 veterans—during that time period—died or were dying or suffering serious injuries because of delayed diagnosis or treatment for those procedures.

The Duckworth campaign did not respond to a request for comment.


This is disgraceful. If this woman is a vet she sure doesn't have much time or compassion for her fellow vets. If she is a Democrat and campaigning for Democratic candidates then she is campaigning for those that hate the military because they are a bunch of '60's radicals. What she did is shameful and should be investigated.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Senator Lindsey Graham cosponsors the CARERS Act

Lindsey Graham’s Mind-Expanding Pot Journey

The conservative senator’s evolving views track a striking shift in public opinion on medical marijuana.

By James Higdon
September 20, 2016

Eighteen months ago, three junior senators attempted something their chamber had never considered, much less accomplished—starting to roll back the long-entrenched federal ban on marijuana.

Though all first-termers, the senators—Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Rand Paul of Kentucky—knew enough about the difficulties of marijuana politics to avoid any mention of full-scale legalization. They tailored the bill to focus narrowly on medical marijuana and the half-dozen stumbling blocks in federal law that have made it so difficult for Americans to get safe access to the increasingly popular drug.

They branded their bill with a clever acronym: the CARERS Act, for the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion and Respect States Act of 2015, which, if passed, would do a number of sensible things: reclassify marijuana so that it is considered to have some medical value; permit banks to handle money from legal marijuana businesses; prevent the government from interfering with state-legal medical marijuana programs; exclude non-psychoactive marijuana extracts from the definition of marijuana; grant military veterans access to medical marijuana; and break the government’s monopoly on medical marijuana research.

To no one’s surprise, the bill went absolutely nowhere. But it didn’t die. Despite being ignored by leadership, it managed to collect 16 cosponsors by the end of 2015, a laundry list of mostly Democrats, two Republicans and an independent. Then, early this year, a 17th name was added, and a surprising one at that: Lindsey Graham.

The senior senator from South Carolina, an establishment Republican if ever there was one, a foreign policy hawk who ran for president this cycle in large part because he perceived Rand Paul’s isolationism as a threat to national security, Lindsey Graham—who represents a state that doesn’t even allow medical marijuana—has become one of the unlikeliest and potentially most influential of the bill’s backers because he is unique among the bill's cosponsors (now at 20), as he’s the only one with a gavel.

And unlike his colleagues among Republican leadership, Graham is using his authority to move the marijuana bill forward. In mid-July, he chaired a Judiciary subcommittee hearing focused on the pros and cons of changing the way the Drug Enforcement Administration classifies marijuana like it was heroin. Over the 4½ decades of the war on drugs, there have been plenty of hearings on the dangers of marijuana, but before July 13 there had never been a hearing on marijuana's medical benefits. “If there was one, I don't know about it,” Graham told POLITICO Magazine.

The emergence of Graham as an honest broker of information on this issue reflects rapidly shifting attitudes among conservative Americans. Opposition to marijuana legalization among Republicans has withered from 60 percent in December 2014 to 42 percent in July 2016, while the percentage of Republicans in favor of legalizing pot has grown from 28 percent to 45 percent over the same period. But Graham does more than just add a prominent voice. His decision to chair a hearing was a critical step (though no guarantee) toward getting a vote on the CARERS Act in the full Judiciary Committee, the only avenue by which it can reach the Senate floor.

Graham, he is at pains to point out, rejects marijuana for recreational use, but he told POLITICO Magazine, “I am open-minded to the idea that the plant may have medical attributes that could help people.…I'm convinced that we should, as a nation, research the medical applications of the marijuana plant....It could be life-changing. I just want to do it in a scientific way…and the current system doesn't allow for the research that we need.”

We’ve seen this before, when public opinion swings suddenly on a divisive cultural issue and yanks lawmakers along by the arm. It happened with gay marriage, and the impetus of the change is always personal experience. Graham’s conversion has been no different.

“I have several people that I personally know who have children who have some epilepsy and other diseases,” Graham told POLITICO, “and the parents seem to think this helps. And…what stuns me is how little we know and how much more we could know. Some of these [diseases], like epilepsy, the families tell us that it has changed the child's life. That’s why I want more research. Is that anecdotal, or is it real? To me, that's very exciting.”

Parents of children with epilepsy have become the most effective advocates for marijuana law reform at every level. Consequently, in a very short time frame, laws legalizing cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive compound found in the cannabis plant, have passed in 16 states, mostly in the south and southeast: Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and, yes, South Carolina. The problem is that most of these laws provide little access to actual CBD because marijuana is still classified as a highly addictive drug with no medical benefit. So the state laws, in some cases, have made matters worse by providing false hope for the parents of sick children, a problem the CARERS Act aims to solve.

“When you ask if it is still illegal under federal law, it’s almost a trick question,” said Jill Swing, a South Carolina resident and mother of a child affected by a disease that is treatable with CBD. “Currently the federal government is in conflict with itself. The Federal Farming Act of 2014 allows for cultivation of hemp….That being said, all forms of cannabis, including hemp, are considered Schedule I controlled substances by the DEA. That is why the CBD component of the CARERS Act is so important.”

It’s parents like Swing who helped educate Graham on the importance of CBD, and legalizing CBD has become sort of an entry-level course for former drug warriors who are now inching toward drug policy reform.

Even Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and longtime bĂȘte noire of marijuana advocates, made an appearance at Graham’s subcommittee hearing in July to express his support for legalizing CBD. But he made sure to limit his support to juvenile epileptics and “children who suffer from these rare conditions.” In essence, he was acknowledging the medical benefit of marijuana but reserving the right to determine which sick people deserve access to that medicine.

Graham’s open-mindedness on the issue goes back to an experience with his own mother, whose death he wrote about in an autobiography he released in the run-up to his presidential campaign. In My Story, a 126-page e-book available on his website, Graham relates in gripping detail his mother Millie’s battle with stage IV Hodgkin’s lymphoma, her quick wasting, how the doctors pronounced her dead, and how Lindsey rushed to her bedside and revived her, if only for a few days. His mother, 56, told him, "Lindsey, let me go.” After a week, during which the 21-year-old college student witnessed his mother convulse with seizures, Graham, fighting back tears, told his mother: “Okay, let go. We’ll be fine. Let go.”

“She smiled at me,” Graham wrote, “and died five minutes later.”

The book never delves into whether marijuana might have helped his mother (she died in 1976, decades before the debate would emerge so publicly), but the anecdote is just the kind of experience that could cause even a lobbyist-besieged senator to empathize with cancer survivors evangelizing the benefits of medical marijuana. So, I asked Graham if that’s what happened with him.

“Absolutely,” he said, without hesitation. “I mean, chemotherapy—they kill you to make you better. And people who go through chemo treatment go through hell. If there's an application of the marijuana plant that can help patients like that? I know they need all the help they can get. I just want to make sure we do it based on science, but that is a worthy goal....Sign me up.”

But Graham’s votes haven’t always matched his thinking on the issue. It took some gentle nudging from Don Murphy, director of conservative outreach for the Marijuana Policy Project, to get Graham’s votes to reflect his rhetoric.

It was the morning of June 11, 2015, when Murphy said he caught Graham in the hallway before Graham went into a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee to vote. Graham asked Murphy, “How you doing?” And Murphy seized the opening.

“Well, that depends on how you vote on my amendment.”

“Well, what amendment is that?”

“It’s the medical marijuana amendment,” Murphy recalls telling Graham, “and I’ve read that you’ve made certain positive statements about the states making these decisions and patients making these decisions, and I hope your vote reflects your previous statements.”

Indeed, in February 2014, Graham had told WBTV in Charlotte, North Carolina: “…when it comes to medicinal marijuana and this [CBD] oil, I think politicians should embrace what makes sense….This is about families with sick children.” In effect, Graham was making favorable statements for more than a year before Murphy grabbed him in the hallway. He just wasn’t voting that way.

Murphy reminded him of this, he said, eliciting polite nods from Graham as the senator clutched the doorknob of the committee room before disappearing inside.

Murphy’s amendment, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), aimed at restricting federal law enforcement from meddling with state-legal medical marijuana programs. It passed the Senate Appropriations Committee that day by a vote of 21-9, with eight Republicans in favor. At the end of the meeting, Murphy was ecstatic, shaking hands and thanking members, but then he was disappointed to see that Graham had voted no by proxy.

Later that day, while roaming the halls on the second floor of the Russell Office Building, Murphy said he just happened to bump into Graham and a staffer as they left his office. Graham was holding a laundered shirt on a hanger, which impressed Murphy because Graham hadn’t delegated that chore to his staffer.

“How you doing?” Graham asked Murphy, recognizing him from earlier.

“Well, I’d be doing better if, you know, I thought I’d get your vote.”

“What do you mean?” Graham said.

“You voted no by proxy."

Graham looked at his staffer and said, “I did?” And the staffer said, “Yeah, you did.” In long committee meetings, it's not uncommon for a member to step out for a few minutes and for a staffer seated behind the member to indicate with a head nod to the chair how the member intended to vote for a particular amendment. In this case, Graham's staffer guessed incorrectly.

“What!?” Graham said. “I didn’t want to do that!” And right there, Graham pulled out his flip phone and called the clerk to change his vote, but it was too late. From that moment on, Graham was thinking about the issue in a new way.

About six months later, Murphy was in New Hampshire lobbying presidential candidates for the Marijuana Policy Project and he bumped into Graham at a Jeb Bush rally, just a few weeks after Graham had suspended his own campaign. Graham came up to Murphy and told him, “I’m on that bill!”—meaning the CARERS Act, which caught Murphy off-guard because it’s his job to know these things. He went back to his hotel that night and looked it up on his laptop and didn’t see Graham’s name listed as a co-sponsor, so the next day he hunted Graham down and found him at another Jeb rally.

“Senator, respectfully, I don’t see your name on there,” Murphy said.

“It’s on there! I promise you, it’s on there!” Graham insisted. For whatever bureaucratic reason, Graham’s name wasn’t officially added to the co-sponsor list until March 10, a month after the New Hampshire primary.

On July 13, 6½ months after Graham withdrew from the presidential race and six months after he saw Don Murphy in New Hampshire, Graham chaired the Senate’s first-ever hearing on medical marijuana. Murphy was sitting in the gallery.

About an hour into the hearing, Graham shuffled through his papers, found what he was looking for, and holding it up, he said, “I don’t mean to advertise for this guy, but Dr. Reefer—”displaying a photo of a pot leaf-emblazoned billboard for a Las Vegas-area business that provides medical marijuana cards to qualifying residents. “He has a billboard. I think this is in Las Vegas," Graham said, eliciting enough laughs from the gallery to wake the room up.

Graham entered Dr. Reefer into the record to demonstrate that some states’ medical marijuana programs “have not gone down the scientific route,” and he called Dr. Reefer a prime example of a bad actor using medical marijuana as a fig leaf to cover, in Graham’s words, “de facto backdoor legalization” of marijuana for recreational use.

For Graham, the medical marijuana issue is a spectrum: On one end are the juvenile epileptics who need CBD, who he supports without reservation, and on the other end is Dr. Reefer, an operation that Graham sees as making a mockery of medical marijuana in order to legitimize criminal activity. During his hearing, practically in real time, it appeared Graham was trying to determine where along that spectrum he felt comfortable landing.

Graham was introduced to the problem of Dr. Reefer by Miriam Adelson, a medical doctor and an addiction researcher who is also the wife of billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. “They said, 'This is not what you want,’” Graham tells POLITICO Magazine. “And I got a bunch of stuff from California, too. But the Dr. Reefer was just too easy, so I chose him.”

A lawmaker looking for clarity on this issue isn’t likely to get much help from the Adelsons, who have taken seemingly contradictory positions on medical marijuana. The Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation studies medical marijuana in its facility in Tel Aviv, but just two years ago, in 2014, Sheldon Adelson, one of the most prolific donors to conservative causes, gave the anti-medical marijuana campaign in Florida $5.5 million. The Las Vegas Review Journal flipped its editorial position on marijuana from pro to con after Adelson purchased the newspaper. In September, the Adelsons reinforced their commitment to fight medical marijuana with an additional $1 million to fight legalization in Florida. “The Adelsons are strong opponents of medical marijuana,” says Michael Collins of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Miriam Adelson has not responded to a request for comment from POLITICO Magazine. Craig Moon, publisher of the Review Journal , replied in an email, “the editorial board reports to me, I believe that Nevadans should vote no on the recreational marijuana amendment. The Adelson family also shares my view.”

Dr. Reefer is not a real person; it’s a business that doesn’t grow or sell any marijuana. Since it opened in 2001, it charges patients a fee and provides them with a medical card that allows them to purchase marijuana legally at separate establishments. It was founded by a three-time felon who ran afoul of federal authorities in 2010, when he was caught overstepping the bounds of Dr. Reefer’s business model by selling marijuana directly to clients. Dr. Reefer continues its busy referral business with its provocative brand name under new ownership (whose identities are difficult to determine).

“As for the billboards, it’s nothing new,” says Derek Sante, spokesman for Dr. Reefer. “Those billboards have been up for more than a decade.”

Although advocates like Don Murphy have no love for the Adelsons (“It’s heartless to support making criminals out of cancer patients, and that's what Adelsons' position does”), Murphy concedes that operations like Dr. Reefer remain an obstacle to his work.

“Look, he’s not wrong,” Murphy said, referring to Graham. “The nonsense that went on in California for years has made it very difficult for those of us who are advocating for legitimate medical marijuana patients.” But Murphy goes on to connect the dots between bad state law and a paralyzed Congress: “California happens because legislators don’t do their jobs.”

“So, anyway,” Murphy said, bringing it back around to the CARERS Act hearing in July. “I’m real happy with Lindsey Graham.” Like many activists who sat through Graham’s historic Senate hearing, Murphy left that day feeling like Graham meant business.

“I do mean business,” Graham told POLITICO Magazine.

“Sen. Graham has gone above and beyond,” says Murphy. “He just didn’t put his name on it [the CARERS Act], he actually held a hearing. And I give him major props for that, and the hearing was pretty fair.”

“What we're doing today is not enough,” Graham said of the federal drug-law status quo. “We need to do more, and I just want to make sure that what we do doesn't get us to legitimizing the Dr. Reefers of the world.”

On August 11, the DEA refused to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to the less-severe Schedule II, as the CARERS bill would do, but did promise to accept applications for licensed growing operations in order to improve access to research-quality marijuana. It didn’t indicate how many applications it would approve. (Graham has not responded to requests for comment regarding the DEA’s decision.)

Unless something changes in the lame-duck session, the likelihood the CARERS Act gets a vote in this Congress remains close to zero; the fight over Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland is all the Senate Judiciary Committee is focused on. While the CARERS Act's progress is historic, it's still just a marijuana bill on Capitol Hill.

And the lame-duck session could indeed follow a landslide of state-level marijuana victories that could rattle even the most steadfast drug-war loyalist. Medical marijuana will be on the ballot in Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota, while full Colorado-style legalization will be on the ballot in California, Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada, where voters could render Dr. Reefer and his "de facto legalization" scheme beside the point.

But Don Murphy of MPP is having a field day with it. He tells all the Republican lawmakers in states where it's on the ballot: "I bet you marijuana gets more votes than you do."

James Higdon is a freelance writer based in Louisville and author of The Cornbread Mafia: A Homegrown Syndicate’s Code of Silence and the Biggest Marijuana Bust in American History. He can be reached at @jimhigdon. Full disclosure: His father, Jimmy Higdon, is a Republican state senator in the Kentucky state legislature.


This is great. We should contact Senator Lindsey Graham and thank him for cosponsoring the CARERS Act. Someone as influential as Graham can make CARERS go far. Let's tell him about the advantages of recreational marijuana and reassure him that the anti-marijuana propaganda are all lies put out by a desperate alcohol industry that is afraid of competition. They are afraid of not getting the money for selling their poison like they used to.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Before he leaves office Obama wants to take away your guns

From Campaign For Liberty:

Even with all of the Orwellian madness you and I are seeing today, the statists know achieving the authoritarian utopia they crave depends on finally wiping out the last roadblock standing in their way...

That's the American people's right to keep and bear arms.

Now, with President Obama's time in the White House winding down, I'm afraid the threat of a federal "NO GUN LIST" is growing bigger by the day.

Should President Obama get his way, law-abiding American patriots could find themselves stripped of their Second Amendment rights -- with ZERO recourse.

And just like you and I have seen with government debt, ObamaCare funding, and defending the out-of-control Federal Reserve, I'm afraid BOTH parties will be on the deal!

That's why I'm counting on you to please sign your NO GUN CONTROL petitions IMMEDIATELY.

As you'll see, these petitions draw a line in the sand, insisting that your U.S. Representative and Senators vote "NO!" on any gun control scheme that reaches the floor of Congress.

The truth is, even before last December's shootings in San Bernardino, California (which government spying failed to prevent -- yet again!), President Obama was already claiming gun control would be the "central issue" of his remaining year in office.

Shortly after -- seemingly out of nowhere -- BOTH parties began rallying for a so-called "NO GUN LIST."

Under this gun control scheme, any law-abiding American citizen the federal government places on the federal "No-Fly List" could suddenly lose their Second Amendment rights with no due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment!

Since this list is secret, it would leave citizens with effectively zero legal recourse if targeted by a rogue Attorney General.

Worse, I'm afraid it's no accident.

I'm afraid -- during this critical election year -- members of BOTH parties are anxious to tell the anti-gun national media they "did something" about gun violence and terrorism all at the same time.

Even as you and I see the Middle East burning under ISIS, BOTH parties will never admit the horrific failure of their failed policies.

Instead, their answer is to come after even more of our freedom once again!

Frankly, I'm sick of watching Washington, D.C., blame the liberty of law-abiding Americans for their own Big Government failures.

And it makes my stomach churn to imagine what could happen if our federal government were ever to gain the illicit power of a federal "No-Gun" list.

Any American an administration identifies as a "problem citizen" could easily become a secret target.

That could be just because the government doesn't like the political candidates you support, the church you attend, or the limited government beliefs you hold.

Remember that Missouri Information and Analysis Center (MIAC) document -- an affiliate of the Department of Homeland Security -- that warned about citizens who displayed the Gadsden flag or supported my candidacy for President?

Well, just last year, our federal government issued a warning that stated that these citizens pose a threat "equal to -- and in some cases greater than -- the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention."

Already, the federal "No-Fly List" is infamous for mistakenly including the names of Members of Congress, conservative editorialists, folk musicians, Department of Homeland Security employees and even toddlers.

That's bad enough.

But you and I both know that should our federal government gain this power, the "NO GUN LIST" would be used to target anyone who dares stand up to the statists' authoritarian dreams for the country!

With support of key members of BOTH parties, President Obama could just get the votes he needs to RAM this gun control scheme into law!

That's why Campaign for Liberty staff is preparing an all-out mobilization campaign to FIGHT BACK.

Sadly, I'm afraid Campaign for Liberty is one of the ONLY organizations that will tell the American people the truth about what the "NO GUN LIST" could mean for the future of liberty in America.

As we've seen with the so-called "PATRIOT Act," Internet regulation, and other statist schemes, few Members of Congress balk at handing our federal government more power over our lives if "terrorism" is the excuse.

But as far as I'm concerned, the Second Amendment -- and every other God-given freedom protected by the Bill of Rights -- is non-negotiable for any reason!

If you agree, please sign your NO GUN CONTROL petitions to Campaign for Liberty right away.

And if you possibly can, please agree to your most generous contribution of $15 right away to help Campaign for Liberty prepare for the anti-gun onslaught I'm afraid is set to hit Congress.

Your generous contribution will enable Campaign for Liberty to launch an all-out mobilization program, including:

*** Contacting up to eight million Americans using mail and email to generate NO GUN CONTROL petitions.

*** Using social media and highly-trafficked blogs to turn up the heat on key swing votes in Congress;

*** Working talk-radio and cable TV news shows to explain why we can't allow government to start gutting our most basic freedoms without due process;

*** Running hard-hitting Internet, radio and even TV ads (if I can raise the resources), calling on U.S. Representatives and Senators by name to vote "NO" on gun control.

But Campaign for Liberty can't put any of this into action without your support -- especially with ongoing battles on Audit the Fed and battling BOTH parties' outrageous Big Government agenda.

That's why I'm counting on you to agree to your most generous contribution of $15 right away.

I know that's far more than you've done in the past.

But I'm asking all Campaign for Liberty supporters to stretch to help us put this plan into action.

Of course, if $15 is too much, please agree to $10 or at least $5.

If we are to remain in any sense "free," we cannot just stand by while our Second Amendment is destroyed right before our eyes.

So please sign your NO GUN CONTROL petitions, and agree to your most generous contribution of $15, $10 or at least $5 IMMEDIATELY!

For Liberty,

Ron Paul

P.S. With President Obama's time in the White House winding down, I'm afraid the threat of a federal "NO GUN LIST" is growing bigger by the day.

If passed, it would allow the federal government to strip law-abiding American citizens of their Second Amendment rights with ZERO due process!

That means you could lose your gun rights just because a rogue Attorney General doesn't like the candidates you support, the church you attend, or the limited government beliefs you hold.

That's why I'm counting on you to please sign your NO GUN CONTROL petitions, and agree to your most generous contribution of $15, $10 or at least $5 TODAY!

Monday, September 19, 2016

Say no to government waste

From Freedom Works:

Will you let these liberal DC insiders rush a big, bloated federal budget through Congress, a budget that wastes BILLIONS of your tax dollars on corrupt, big government projects? I don’t know about you, but I won’t. FreedomWorks is doing everything we can to stop their nefarious plot. But we can’t do it ourselves. WE NEED YOUR HELP! That’s why I’m asking you to call your congressman at 202-360-4370 and tell them to say NO to a short-term budget.

If they succeed, either your taxes will go up or the national debt will continue to skyrocket. Thankfully there’s still time left to stop this nightmare scenario. But the clock is ticking. And time is running out. So please, take 30 seconds and call your member of congress at 202-360-4370 right now. Tell them NO lame duck budgets, period. Tell them to say NO to a short-term budget.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Tell Obama to pardon Edward Snowden

From Demand Progress:

As the movie launching this week reminds us, Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing revealed the NSA’s massive, secret – and unconstitutional – surveillance programs.

He took a huge personal risk to bring these programs to light. And his actions launched a vital national debate on whether the NSA should be spying on innocent Americans.

But three years later, Snowden is still being forced to live in exile and threatened with likely spending the rest of his life in prison if he ever comes back to the country he loves.

We have less than 125 days to push President Obama to officially pardon this important American whistleblower.

Tell President Obama: Pardon Edward Snowden now!

Presidential pardons are about justice. They are for when the legal system has failed, or the laws are unjust or when our consciences demand it.

Snowden made his sacrifice not for personal gain, but because he knew it was the only real way to expose the unconstitutional spying programs he witnessed.

So when the White House tries to claim Snowden “is not a whistleblower”1 because he didn’t follow the "proper" whistleblower process, they’re just playing cynical word games.

Intelligence contractors, like Edward Snowden, are NOT protected by the Intelligence Community’s whistleblower protections. The Intelligence Community’s own lawyer, even admits it.2

Even had Edward Snowden followed the “proper” process, his whistleblowing wouldn’t have been protected.

Presidential pardons exist for exactly this kind of extraordinary situation. It’s time that President Obama uses that power to recognize Snowden’s public service.

Sign and share the petition to President Obama: Pardon Edward Snowden now and let him come home!

Snowden acted out of desperation and patriotism to inform Americans of the unconstitutional mass surveillance the NSA was conducting.

Even former Attorney General Eric Holder agrees: “I think that he actually performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the changes that we made.”3

Snowden stood up for our rights. Now it’s time we stand up for his.

Stand up for Edward Snowden and tell President Obama: Three years is enough. Pardon Snowden and bring him home!

1. Source
2. Source
3. Source

Millionaire tries to thwart the marijuana legalization movement in California

From Californians for Responsible Marijuana Reform:

It was reported that a single Pennsylvanian millionaire gave a whopping $1.3 million to groups in California opposing Proposition 64.

However, there is also a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission as to whether this money was donated illegally. The commission will determine if the opposition's funds are within the rules, but in the meantime, we need to redouble our efforts.

Will you help counter this major influx of money to our opponents by making an immediate donation here?

I have no doubt that we will pass Prop 64 and legalize marijuana for adult use in California if we can come together at this moment. The opposition may be well-funded, but we know we are on the right side of this battle and history.

Please help us get this done: Donate now to support our campaign to legalize marijuana for adult use. Any amount helps.

Thank you,

Lynne Lyman
Californians for Responsible Marijuana Reform

Paid for by Californians for Responsible Marijuana Reform, Sponsored by Drug Policy Action, 1330 Broadway Suite 1426, Oakland CA 94612