9/23- September 23rd, 2015…Jade Helm, Blood Moons, Shemitah, Etc.

There’s just no avoiding it. There is soooo much going around about this September and financial collapse, weird coincidences, and Yahweh’s Appointed Times, otherwise known as the Biblical Feast Days, that one would need to be in serious denial to not be at least peripherally aware of the concerns.

With no apologies, I am a follower of Yeshua, and His very name means Yah is salvation. So I do focus on the Appointed Times more than on the deceptions of Satan in mimicking Yah and imputing numerological significance to dates on the wrong calendar. I have espoused preparation and care for your neighbors and surroundings for ever. BUT, I am very, very, very leery of date setting and have a few words of caution for people that I need to share. So bear with me please, as I do think it is very important to keep some things in mind as we approach September.

First and foremost, while it definitely looks as though it is the Shemitah, the release, the Shabbat of the land, it doesn’t always happen on a definitive day. It can happen over time, and therefore not be as clear of an occurrence in our decidedly human minds. In other words, there can be a snowballing effect in action, and it will likely be traceable to a significant Scriptural appointed time, but it may not be evident to us while we are in the beginning stages.

Also, most people have no idea that there is a schism among those who do observe the Moedim, or Appointed Times. The Jews typically follow a projected calendar based upon astronomical calculations of the new moon. However, even the Encyclopedia Judaica shows that prior to the Hillel II calendar adoption, Hebrews used the sliver of the moon to begin the count of the months, which never exceed 30 days. The Karraite Jews still do this, and publish their sighting of the new moon in the current nation of Israel on their website. This causes a slight variance in observance of the High Sabbaths and Moedim amongst those who keep the Appointed Times.

The reason this is important information is because people will likely scoff when something happens a day or two before or after a projected event. Most people don’t even know there is any dissension among those who observe these Appointments, and when they come across the dissension, they can become very confused. We certainly have had a difficult time coming to a conclusion in our own home, so I thought it was worthwhile to let those who are interested know that there are issues with the agreed observance of the actual days.

On the Jewish calendar, they project Yom Teruah, or Rosh Hoshana/Feast of Trumpets to be September 13th. For those who are looking for the crescent moon, the projected date for being able to see the sliver of the moon is September 15th. Yes, the last day for Jade Helm 15. So the point is, we are close, but not exactly in agreement on the Appointed Times.

Hopefully, after letting everyone know that aside from Shavuot (Pentecost) and the regular weekly Sabbath, that there are some variances among the observant people, even, or more importantly, among many in the Hebraic Roots and Messianic groups, you will see that the Creator doesn’t work on our time frames. In Scripture, there are at least two times where Yahweh stopped or turned back the sun. So, as Yeshua said, “No man knows the day or the hour”, so “watch and pray”.

Now that is out of the way, I would like to invite you to read the following article by Michael Snyder. He has done a good job of succinctly encapsulating a lot of the events that are lined up for September of this year. I also want to encourage you to prepare as well as you can and to not be afraid, but be aware…and Be Well!

The Mystery Of September 23: Why Does 9/23 Keep Popping Up All Over the Place?

23 Twenty Three - Public DomainWhat is going to happen on September 23rd, 2015?  For months, there has been an incredible amount of buzz on the Internet about the month of September, and in particular there has been a tremendous amount of speculation about the date of September 23rd.  For a long time I didn’t pay much attention to all of this chatter, because I like to stick to things that I can prove.  In law school, I was trained to be very analytical and to greatly value hard evidence.  If you follow my articles regularly, you have probably noticed those traits reflected in my writing.  Well, today I am going to discuss some things that I cannot prove.  I am going to share with you some things that other people are reporting, and I humbly submit them for your consideration.  Personally, I do not know what is going to happen on September 23rd, but I have come to the conclusion that there are just way too many “coincidences” to ignore.   Ultimately, you need to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

There are a couple of things about September 23 that we can say that we know for sure.  First of all, Yom Kippur falls on that day.  It is the most solemn of all of the holy days in the Bible, and it is commonly connected with the judgment of God.

Secondly, we know that Pope Francis will be arriving at the White House to meet with Barack Obama on September 23.

But both of those events are not that unusual.  Yom Kippur happens every year, and U.S. presidents have met with popes quite often in the past.

So why is everyone getting so excited?

Well, when you couple the amazing confluence of events that we are going to witness in September 2015 with the unprecedented warnings and cryptic messages about the three day period of September 22nd to September 24th that seem to be popping up all over the place, it is enough to cause any rational person to stop and reflect on what might happen.

If you are not familiar with what I am talking about, I encourage you to watch the three YouTube videos that I have posted below.

I want to make it clear that I do not agree with everything in these videos.

Again, I do not agree with everything in these videos.

But all three of them do contain some incredible “coincidences” that I cannot explain away.

In this first video, we see that the numbers “9/23″ just keep occurring over and over again during recent global catastrophes

In this next video, we see that the date of “9/23″ has been repeatedly embedded in popular movies and television shows

Lastly, I want to share with you an extraordinary message by Jim Staley entitled “September 23rd, 2015 – The Convergence” in which he discusses all of the things that are going to happen on and around this date…

Did watching those three videos change your perspective on this?

I have to admit that they shook me up.  And when you combine all of this information with dreams and visions that people have been having about September, it starts to become difficult to ignore this phenomenon.

Just yesterday, I was alerted to the following message that Dr. Patricia Green just recently released

This is a message from the LORD given to Patricia Green on July 29, 2015.

September 23rd is the day Obama makes a pact with the devil. It was not by chance that the Pope and Obama are meeting on the Day of Atonement. (September 23, 2015) They will make a pact that will seal the fate of the United States of America. My vengeance will be poured out from this point forward. (September 23rd) There is no turning back.

Tell My people to draw close to Me in these last days. Tell them to purify their hearts by the washing of the water of My Word. Tell them to ask My Spirit to expose any wickedness within themselves, so they can repent and be clean.

I am returning for My Bride without spot or wrinkle. I am coming for a pure Bride. Only those who are purified by My Spirit and My Word are My Bride. There will be no pretending when I return. Many will say, “LORD, LORD, did I not prophesy in Your Name, heal the sick, cast out demons, and bring people into Your kingdom?” And I will say to those who had impure hearts, “Get from Me, I never knew you.”

This is the time for self-reflection. If you judge yourself in this season and repent of your hidden sin, your sin will not be exposed to your shame.

Now is the time to purify your own hearts. Now is the time before My vengeance is poured out.”

Once again, I do not personally know what will happen on September 23rd.

If I did, I would tell you.

I am just reporting what others are saying.  Use discernment and decide for yourself if there is anything to all of this.

But without a doubt, the month of September does appear to be extremely significant.  In a recent article, I detailed some of the things that will be happening next month…

September 14th – Rosh Hashanah

September 15th – The Jade Helm military exercises are scheduled to end.

September 15th – The 70th session of the UN General Assembly begins on this date.  It has been widely reported that France plans to introduce a resolution which will give formal UN Security Council recognition to a Palestinian state shortly after the new session begins.  Up until now, the U.S. has always been the one blocking such a resolution, but Barack Obama has already indicated that things may be different this time around.  If alarm bells are going off in your head as you read this, then you probably already understand how significant this event could potentially be.

September 20th to September 26th – The “World Week For Peace in Palestine Israel” sponsored by the World Council of Churches.

September 21stThe UN International Day Of Peace.  Could this be the day when the UN Security Council resolution establishing a Palestinian state is actually adopted?

September 23rd – Yom Kippur

September 23rd – Pope Francis arrives at the White House to meet with Barack Obama.  Some have suggested that the timing of this event is highly unusual

Francis is the 266th pope who will be meeting with President Obama on the 266th day of the year, leading one Internet preacher to wonder if “something is being birthed” on that day, since 266 days is the typical human gestation period from conception to birth.

September 24th – The Pope addresses a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

September 25th to September 27th – The United Nations is going to launch a brand new sustainable development agenda called “The 2030 Agenda“.  The following is an excerpt from an article that I just wrote about this insidious new plan

If you didn’t like “Agenda 21″, then you really are not going to like “The 2030 Agenda”.  Next month, the United Nations is going to launch “The 2030 Agenda” at a major conference that will be held from September 25th to September 27th in New York City.  The Pope is actually traveling to New York to deliver an address which will kick off this conference.  Unlike Agenda 21, which primarily focused on the environment, the 2030 Agenda is truly a template for governing the entire planet.  In addition to addressing climate change, it also sets ambitious goals for areas such as economics, health, energy, education, agriculture, gender equality and a whole host of other issues.  As you will see below, this global initiative is being billed as a “new universal Agenda” for humanity.  If you are anything like me, alarm bells are going off in your head right about now.

September 28th – This is the date when the Feast of Tabernacles begins.  It is also the date for the last of the four blood moons that fall on Biblical festival dates during 2014 and 2015.  This blood moon falls on the very first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, it will be a “supermoon”, and it will be clearly visible from the city of Jerusalem.  There are many that dismiss the blood moon phenomenon, but we have seen similar patterns before.  For example, a similar pattern of eclipses happened just before and just after the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans in 70 AD.

I want to make it clear that I am not claiming that anything specific will happen on any particular date.

But I am not claiming that nothing will happen on any of these days either.

I do believe that September will be an extremely significant month, and without a doubt I do believe that we are currently living in the last days of normal life in America.

So what do you think is about to happen?

Please feel free to add to the discussion by posting a comment below…

Legalized, But Heavily Controlled Medical Marijuana Doesn’t Give Access in NY

Currently there are 23 states with some form of legalized access to cannabis. Most of these states have severely restricted the ability of people in need to actually get the cannabis that will likely help them or their loved one with the myriad of illnesses that cannabis can help to treat. Illinois, New York, Nevada, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and even Colorado are having issues with medical patients getting access to what they need.

Here’s a story from New York. The daughter of the main interviewee has a terrible form of epilepsy that can kill…

Despite pleas, quicker medical-pot bill in flux

The fate of legislation meant to speed up New York’s not-yet-launched medical marijuana program remains in flux.

The state Legislature passed a bill in mid-June that would allow the Department of Health to suspend certain regulations in order to allow a company to produce and distribute the drug to chronically ill patients prior to the program’s official launch.

That bill, however, has not yet been formally sent to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s desk, an official act that would start a 10-day clock for the Democrat to sign or veto it.

And with the state awarding its five available medical-marijuana growing licenses last week, it’s unclear whether there would be enough time for one of those companies to get up-and-running before January, when the state’s full program is scheduled to launch.

“We are still pushing for it to get signed,” said Julie Netherland, deputy state director for the Drug Policy Alliance. “It’s great that the (registered organizations) were announced, but our concern remains that the program could be delayed and further delay access to patients who are critically ill.”

Under a 2014 law, the state Department of Health is required to launch its full medical-marijuana program by Jan. 5, 2016. But that date can be delayed until the health commissioner and State Police superintendent certify that the program can be implemented “in accordance with public health and safety interests.”

If the June bill is signed by Cuomo, the health department would be required to create a “special certification” for patients with a “progressive and degenerative” disease or those whose life or health is at risk without the drug.

Those patients would be allowed access to marijuana-based prescriptions before the full program launches, and Health Commissioner Howard Zucker would be able to suspend agency rules to allow a license holder to distribute the drug early.

The emergency-access bill was largely spurred by concerns from parents of children with severe forms of epilepsy, who traveled many times to the state Capitol to advocate for its passage. Some strains of medical marijuana — New York’s plan only allows non-smokeable forms — have shown promise for taming epileptic seizures.

Cuomo has not signaled whether he supports the bill. Since it hasn’t yet been sent to his desk by the state Assembly, he has not yet been forced to act on it. The sponsoring house of the Legislature and Cuomo’s office traditionally make joint decisions on when to send legislation to the governor’s desk.

In a statement Friday, Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi said the Democrat’s administration will keep “all practical options open to ensure that those in pain receive the treatment they need as quickly as possible.”

“Our goal has always been to deliver relief to those in need and we’re pleased that the Compassionate Care Act is on track to have one of the shortest and swiftest implementation periods of any medical marijuana program in the nation,” he said.

Even if Cuomo signs the bill, it’s unclear whether any of the five license holders — each of whom can have one growing center and four dispensaries spread across the state — would be able to cultivate marijuana prior to Jan. 5, the deadline the state says it is working to meet.

Marijuana is a banned substance at the federal level, meaning it would be illegal to import grown marijuana from other states. A waiver request by Cuomo’s administration to allow it to import plants from other states was denied earlier this year.

Sen. Diane Savino, D-Staten Island, was the prime Senate sponsor of the state’s 2014 law creating the medical-marijuana program. She opposed the emergency-access bill, saying it will stifle efforts to get a more broad-based program up and running.

“Even if you wanted to issue a separate license for one group, they wouldn’t be able to do it any sooner,” Savino said Friday. “There’s really no opportunity to move it any quicker. You have to grow it in your own state. You have to process it in your own state.”

The sponsors of the emergency-access bill, however, say the legislation is still relevant and called on Cuomo to sign it.

Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-Rome, Oneida County, sponsored the bill in the Legislature’s upper chamber despite voting against the 2014 medical-marijuana law.

“The impetus for the bill was to find a way to help particularly these children who need immediate access, some form or manner of an opportunity to get that,” said Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-Rome, Oneida County. “That continues, from my perspective, to be relevant, because they still don’t have that access.”

At least one advocate said she’s not optimistic that any form of emergency access to the drug will come before January.

“I’m not hopeful, I guess,” said Kate Hintz, a North Salem, Westchester County, resident whose 4-year-old daughter, Morgan, suffers from Dravet syndrome, a rare form of epilepsy.

She continued: “I think it’s looking like January, if not the end of January. The state hasn’t let us know when we can register as patients. With the lack of details, I’m sort of losing my excitement over the whole program.”

Nevada Medical Cannabis Not Much Help For People in Pain

The following article is a pretty good illustration of why it is necessary to flatly legalize cannabis and let the State control what they are allowed to actually control…Commerce. You know. That’s where a third party is involved in an exchange of goods. An example would be if I were to sell my tomatoes to a health food store and then you were to buy them from that store. If Nevada’s law, which arguably is  poorly written, didn’t have limits on home growers, people could simply help each other. Bureaucracies are horrible at getting help to people when they need it. The medical marijuana with heavy state run controls is more than frustrating for people who are in pain. I’ll be posting several articles about these problems to illustrate why Missourians need to support the 2016-013 Constitutional Amendment.

The article below reminds of the laws regarding cannabis in California in the early 1990’s. At that time, it was legal to have up to one ounce…But you couldn’t buy it, couldn’t grow it and couldn’t sell it. Apparently it was supposed to spontaneously generate in your pocket or purse.

In pain and tired of waiting for legal marijuana

For more than a year, Sheila Gerstenzang has carried the card in her wallet: “Medical Marijuana Patient.”

But she’s yet to purchase a single bit of marijuana.

After a year of frustration and more than $200 out of her pocket, she gave up and let her card expire in May.

Months of delays in opening the first legal Las Vegas-area dispensary have cost investors money and frustrated advocates. But the effect on patients has been the most cruel.

There are more than 9,300 active marijuana cardholders in Nevada, including almost 6,700 in Clark County. There also are an untold number like Gerstenzang who have given up, at least for now.

Nevada’s first dispensary opened July 31 in Sparks. But in Clark County, where nearly three-quarters of the state’s population lives, patients are still waiting.

Gerstenzang, who is in her 60s, has progressive scoliosis and spinal stenosis that cause nearly constant pain. She was first diagnosed at age 9.

About five years ago, with her pain getting worse and specialists unable to help, she did some research and read that marijuana could help her conditions. But she didn’t want to grow her own or use a drug that hadn’t been tested.

Last year, after reading about the coming legal dispensaries, she applied for and got her patient card.

And then she waited.

“It makes me very angry,” Gerstenzang said recently, sitting in the living room of her home in the Summerlin area of Las Vegas. “It makes me feel like we’re all being taken advantage of, we’re being bled for money.”

‘Nothing I can do’

Nearly everyone involved — including county and state officials — has said for months they want dispensaries open in Las Vegas. Yet it hasn’t happened.

Depending on who you ask, you can blame bureaucratic foot-dragging, business decisions, politics, a poorly written state law — or some combination thereof.

It’s been legal for cardholders to grow their own marijuana in Nevada since 2001. In both 1998 and 2000, voters easily approved legalizing it for medical use.

Two years ago, the Legislature voted to allow commercial growing and dispensaries. State Sen. Tick Segerblom, who sponsored that 2013 law, has been frustrated and surprised at how long it’s taken to get Clark County dispensaries open.

In their overly narrow interpretations of its gray areas, Segerblom said, some people seem to have lost sight of the law’s purpose.

“At the end of the day, you have sick people with medical cards who can’t buy this 15 years after the voters of the state approved it,” said Segerblom, D-Las Vegas.

The latest controversy is over one shop’s business plan. Euphoria Wellness, the only dispensary in the county that’s gotten its final state registration, planned to open in March selling marijuana it bought from home growers. That’s allowed under state law.

But the county balked at Euphoria’s plan to buy pounds of marijuana from each grower, citing a separate clause in the law that says a patient can only possess 2½ ounces of “usable marijuana” at a time.

By definition, that means it would be illegal for anyone to sell more than 2½ ounces to a dispensary, the county argues.

Segerblom said that was never the intent of the law, since such a small amount would make the marijuana prohibitively expensive to buy and test. Part of the dispute centers on the definition of the word “usable.”

So the delay has dragged on. Euphoria still isn’t open, and its temporary county business license expired July 30. The dispensary recently threatened to take the county to court, but said it hopes to avoid that.

County Commission Chairman Steve Sisolak said businesses bear blame for the delays, too. He pointed to growers who have long had clearance, but have not started operations.

“There’s a certain amount that the government can control, but we can’t control the economics of it,” Sisolak said.

He said he’s gotten calls from frustrated patients, some of whom tell him they’ve spent $800 or more — for nothing.

“I sympathize … but there’s nothing I can do,” Sisolak said.

‘It’s getting worse’

Some days are better than others. But when asked to describe her pain, Gerstenzang put it this way: “It’s every day; it’s 24 hours a day.”

She can’t sleep comfortably in any position and can’t turn over in bed. She can’t even do the most mundane of tasks, something no one misses until you can’t do it: “I would like to be able to clean my toilet,” she said.

The pain is mostly on her right side, but sometimes spreads to her upper back, too. She can only walk for about a block before it kicks in.

“It’s awful. It’s getting worse,” said her husband of 12 years, Herb. “We can’t have a normal relationship.”

The Gerstenzangs love to travel, but it can be torture. On a trip to Europe, Sheila coped by walking while leaning on a doggie stroller.

A Spanish teacher in New York, she retired on disability in 2002 after becoming unable to even bend over a desk to help a student. Not long after that, the couple moved to Nevada.

Five years ago, when the pain was getting worse, she went to see pain management specialists and an orthopedist. She had an epidural. Nothing helped.

Someone recommended an opiate pump, but she worried about infection.

After reading up on marijuana, she decided she wanted to try a strain low in THC, the main mind-altering substance in marijuana.

“Well, I’m a child of the ’70s, and I did not want to get high any more,” Gerstenzang said.

She called some “delivery” services that advertise online — which are illegal — but none could tell her about the THC content of their marijuana because it hadn’t been tested.

While driving, the Gerstenzangs stopped in Colorado, but a dispensary there couldn’t tell her the THC content of its product, either.

A friend once gave Sheila a little bit of “stuff in honey,” as she put it — a marijuana-infused product. She said she took only a tiny bite, which made her feel “very weird” and did nothing for pain.

The Gerstenzangs are glad marijuana sold in Nevada will be tested. Herb, a pharmacist who worked in drug approval for the Food and Drug Administration, said he wouldn’t want his wife taking an untested drug.

So for now, they wait. With no dispensary open, Sheila sees no point paying more money to her doctor, the state and the Department of Motor Vehicles, which issues the driver’s license-like patient cards.

State officials said they don’t track why people decide not to renew the cards, and they couldn’t say last week how many had made that decision this year.

Once a local dispensary opens, Gerstenzang said, she’ll see if it has a low-THC product, then consider applying for a card again.

“Of course, we have no idea whether it will help me,” she said. “But I’d like to be able to find out.”

Scotland to Ban GMO Production

Here’s some refreshing news:

Scotland to ban growing of genetically modified crops

LONDON (Reuters) – Scotland’s devolved government said on Sunday it intended to ban the growing of genetically modified (GM) crops on its territory to protect its “clean and green brand” and because there was little evidence that Scottish consumers wanted GM products.

Widely grown in the Americas and Asia, GM crops have divided opinion in Europe, with some green groups saying they are worried about their environmental impact. They have also questioned whether they are healthy for humans. Producers say research shows the crops are safe.

Richard Lochhead, the Scottish government’s minister for the environment, food and rural affairs, said on Sunday he planned to take advantage of new European Union rules allowing countries to opt out of growing EU-authorized GM crops.

“Scotland is known around the world for our beautiful natural environment – and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance our clean, green status,” Lochhead said in a statement.

“There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our 14 billion-pound ($22 billion) food and drink sector.”

Lochhead, a member of the Scottish National Party, said he had informed the British government, from which Scotland enjoys a large degree of autonomy, of the policy decision.

(Reporting by Andrew Osborn; Editing by Digby Lidstone)

 


Big Pharma Positioning itself on Cannabis

Hats off to the author of the following piece. She’s been around the issue for a very long time and is familiar with the political terrain. This issue brings up an awful lot of philosophical, and flatly scientific questions. On the philosophical side, shouldn’t we, as human beings created in the image of Yah, have the right to care for and to treat ourselves and our families as we see fit? In the intentional dumbing-down of our society, did we lose our capacity to make decisions? On the more scientific side, how do we know that taking an isolate of a plant is going to be as positive for health as taking the entire plant with all of it’s constituents? Do we actually know how all these various components work together within all the various components of the human being? Or did we just discover an aspect and then presume that we have full understanding? We only discovered DNA in 1952 and the endocannabinoid system in the early 1990’s and how do we know that there isn’t another system within that which we haven’t discovered yet?

At any rate, as one would expect, those who desire profit above all else are setting themselves up to control our access to natural substances in their natural forms. Here is the article:

For those hoping that Big Pharma could still be blocked from the medical cannabis scene there is bad news: the deal is done. Look for the first naturally-derived, Big Pharma-produced cannabis product to be on the market by the first half of 2016, perhaps even sooner.

Epidiolex is a liquid formulation of pure, plant-derived cannabidiol (CBD) manufactured by the British company, G.W. Pharmaceuticals. It is currently on the FDA Fast Track and has entered its final Phase 3 study for pediatric epilepsy disorders such as Dravet’s and Lennox-Gastaut’s syndromes with results scheduled for the first quarter of 2016.

Barring an unlikely catastrophic finding, there are plenty of signs that Epidiolex will breeze through this final stage and will thus have cleared the FDA’s testing requirements. For any other drug the remaining details would be purely administrative but Epidiolex is derived from cannabis and that puts a few more hurdles in the way before marketing can begin. There are, however, plenty of signs that government officials are literally paving the way for this new player.

Among the most significant occurred on June 24, 2015. Before a packed hearing room, the U.S. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, established in 1985 to “expand international cooperation against drug abuse and narcotics trafficking” took on the decidedly domestic issue of what to do about medical cannabis. The meeting was chaired by two unlikely medical cannabis proponents, Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

For long-time medical cannabis activists it was a surreal moment to watch these two veteran senators (with a cumulative total of 57 years in the Senate) bob-and-weave their way through unfamiliar territory. Normally these drug warriors would be proposing tougher penalties and increased enforcement. But on June 24th, and in a subsequent editorial in Time Magazine, Grassley and Feinstein supported “expanding compassionate access programs where possible, to benefit as many children as possible.

The hearings were eerily familiar for this medical cannabis pioneer. They immediately hearkened memories of another time when pressure on federal officials forced a “readjustment” of policy. It was 1980 and public interest in medical cannabis was being fueled by heart-wrenching stories from cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Their compelling stories of marijuana’s effectiveness in reducing or eliminating chemo-induced nausea and vomiting had led to the passage of state laws that recognized marijuana’s medical value and sought to establish state-wide programs of research using federal supplies of marijuana. There was a big problem, however. The federal government, which regularly grew a research supply of marijuana on a small plot at the University of Mississippi, didn’t have enough marijuana to supply the demand from these states.

In desperation federal officials turned to the synthetic version of the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The drug was developed in the late 1960s to facilitate animal research. It was not originally intended for human use although researchers did begin using it in humans in the 1970s and in 1980 it was all the government had to stem the demand for medical access to cannabis.

In May 1980, Rep. Stephen L. Neal (D-NC), a member of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, convened a Task Force on Therapeutic Uses of Marihuana and Schedule I Drugs.

The Task Force hearings lasted all day but it was the afternoon session that would bring the bombshell when representatives from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) announced that delta-9 THC would be released through the NCI’s Group C Treatment Program.

“Under Group C, a compound is considered to have documented medical efficacy for a specific indication and not be a research drug per se, although it remains investigational…We anticipate that this change would make THC available to practicing oncologists around the country….We would hope that at some time in the near future a pharmaceutical company would become interested in marketing this drug, but until that time, we feel a responsibility for providing this controversial, but useful substance, to relieve the suffering of cancer patients…” (Hearings, page 162)

It was an unparalleled moment. The federal government was agreeing to produce and distribute, via the NCI, the most psychoactive compound in cannabis. With the tacit blessing of the Congressional Task Force on Therapeutic Uses of Marihuana and Schedule I Drugs, delta-9 THC would be released to hundreds of NCI pharmacies throughout the country. Oncologists would be notified, patients would have access, and the public pressure to “do something” about medical marijuana would be assuaged.

The government would herald this action as the release of “the pot pill” and the American public, not yet sophisticated with respect to cannabinoid knowledge, would breathe a sigh of relief that relatives would no longer be forced to the black market for their chemotherapy anti-nausea drug.

The Neal hearings paved the way for Marinol and, similarly, the Grassley/Feinstein hearings will pave the way for Epidiolex. The scenarios are slightly different, of course. The involvement of GW Pharmaceuticals from the very beginning has been far more pleasing to the FDA and other federal agencies. There is no “Group C” for pediatric epilepsy patients but it is reported that more than 400 patients are already receiving the drug via expanded access INDs.

The question that haunts this senior observer of the medical cannabis movement is: what will the federal government do once Epidiolex is on the market? Will there be a “crackdown” on the growing and enthusiastic CBD market that is flourishing online? (“Legal” CBD is produced from hemp and contains less the 0.03% delta-9 THC.) As Epidiolex is scheduled in the Controlled Substances Act will authorities tighten the control of natural CBD? Consider that Marinol, a synthetic version of the most psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, is Schedule III while the plant itself is Schedule I. Such inconsistency has, of course, been codified and is rather benignly referred to as “differential” scheduling. But, like so many things in the nation’s drug policy, it strikes many as a little crazy. The craziness of the federal policy with respect to marijuana should not be underestimated, nor should it be assumed that the growing tide of legal cannabis states will automatically signal a reform in federal law.

We have the Right to Travel- Supreme Court Rulings

There are many of us that are put at serious odds with the system because of the biometric and full on singularity of the tracking and control paradigm via Real ID and the associated Morpho Trust international collusion. These following cites from a myriad of cases may be helpful to us in protecting the rights that are supposed to be secured by a just government. This is long…And hopefully helpful! Many thanks to Eric Vimont for sending this to me!

Supreme-Court-Justices-2

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

 

OG article

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supreme-court-says-license-necessary-drive-public-letennier

GMO Rice Reduces Methane Output

On it’s face, the following story about genetically engineered rice seems much more innocuous than the vast majority of genetic engineering schemes. But one still has to question the wisdom of splicing different species of genes together. Maybe methane is necessary in order for rice to be digestible? Perhaps we don’t know all that we think we know about the biological processes of life? I mean, if I actually knew half as much as I thought I knew when I was sixteen, it would be amazing. It seems as though in our efforts to run full steam ahead into a Brave New World, we probably getting ahead of ourselves. Anyway, here is the article about a different type of GMO rice:

Genetic engineering creates rice strain that makes less methane

Rice agriculture has become one of the most powerful anthropogenic sources of methane, due to continuously growing world population. “We would get more starch, more food, and less methane”, explains Dr Jansson, now director of plant sciences at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

“Until now, nobody actually achieved success in altering rice plants” the Dutch scientist said.

Already in 2002, scientists reported that the more grain carried by rice plants, the less methane they emitted. Chuanxin Sun of the Swedish university and senior author of the study added a single gene from barley to rice, then planted it in a field next to a conventional rice field in China. By reducing the size of the rice plants’ roots, the scientists hoped that they could curb the amount of methane produced in the fields. As a result, the world’s rice paddies emit between 25 million and 100 million metric tons of methane every year. Since the low-methane strain of rice isn’t bred to be herbicide or pesticide resistant, this most likely won’t be an issue with this particular strain – though the way that its root-system interacts with microbes in the soil is something to watch. With less carbon in the roots, there is less raw material for the microbes to work on, the researchers explain. Without more trials, Bodelier wrote, it’s hard to know how the genetic modification impacts the rice cultivar’s long-term chances for survival. Far fewer methane-producing bacteria hugged the roots of the new rice. Crops like Roundup-resistant soy or corn have led to a marked increase in the use of herbicides in the United States, though some studies have also shown that genetically modified crops have led to a decrease in the use of some pesticides.

The methane is a natural byproduct of the decomposition of organic matter in the rice paddies. The reduction in methane emissions was particularly effective during the summers, when they were down to 0.3 percent of total emissions from the plant’s decomposition, compared to 10 percent emissions in the conventional crop.

Unlike golden rice where a totally alien gene was introduced into the group, here the change is not major but still could have unintended consequences, Paul Bodelier, a microbial ecologist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology in Wageningen told CSM. Therefore, a need for developing a new rice variety that reduces methane emissions was recognized. Genetically engineered rice isn’t commercially cultivated anywhere in the world, in part because of ethical and biological concerns about the spread of engineered rice pollen, experts said.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 92 other followers