Senators Reject Biometric Tracking of Foreigners in Immigration Reform, Also Biometric Database of All Adult Americans Hidden in Immigration Reform

May 14, 2013. Senators reject biometric tracking in immigration reform. Liz Goodwin, Yahoo news.

“A bipartisan group of senators voted against adding a biometric system to the sweeping immigration reform bill that would ensure people on tourist, student and other temporary visas leave the country when they are supposed to. The failed amendment was one of the most controversial additions to the bill considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee at Tuesday’s hearing.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, backed the amendment that would have required the government to use fingerprints and other biometric data to track visitors when they leave the country at airports and other ports of exit. Democrats, including Sens. Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, argued the system would be too expensive to implement.

It was voted down 6-12, with two Republicans joining the 10 Democrats in opposing it. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who helped draft the original bill, said he opposed the amendment because the government hasn’t shown “the will or the desire” to implement the system, and he doubted including it in the bill would change that.

Despite some conservative opposition to the immigration bill, attempts to significantly alter the bill have failed in the committee mark-up process so far.

The current immigration reform bill seeks to legalize most of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country and prevent future illegal immigration though an employment verification system and more border security measures. About 40 percent of the unauthorized immigrants currently in the country entered legally and then overstayed their visas, which Sessions argued raises national security concerns.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress passed a bill mandating that the government institute a biometric tracking system for people on temporary, nonimmigrant visas such as for tourism. Twelve years later, the system still hasn’t been implemented due to cost and other complications.

The Department of Homeland Security estimated it would cost up to $6.4 billion to implement a biometric tracking system in the nation’s airports, according to a report in USA Today. It’s unclear how much it would cost to install similar technology in the country’s land ports, where nearly 80 percent of people enter the United States.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said at the hearing that he was concerned that requiring the biometric system would delay the citizenship process for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants who will benefit from the bill. The amendment said none of those immigrants would be able to apply for citizenship before the biometric system was put in place. The current bill lays out a 10-year waiting period for citizenship for the group.

A spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida and a member of the “Gang of Eight” that drafted the bill, told The Hill he was “disappointed” with the vote, and that he would try to reintroduce it once senators begin debating the bill on the Senate floor.

Another rejected amendment, introduced by Sessions on Tuesday, sought to significantly reduce future legal immigration. Sessions argued it would help the American economy to keep legal immigration numbers down. All of Sessions’ colleagues on the committee, Republican and Democrat, voted against the measure.”

-Source

May 10th, 2013. Biometric Database of All Adult Americans Hidden in Immigration Reform. David Kravets, Wired.com

“The immigration reform measure the Senate began debating yesterday (May 9th) would create a national biometric database of virtually every adult in the U.S., in what privacy groups fear could be the first step to a ubiquitous national identification system.

Buried in the more than 800 pages of the bipartisan legislation (.pdf)  is language mandating the creation of the innocuously-named “photo tool,” a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.

Employers would be obliged to look up every new hire in the database to verify that they match their photo.

This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet. Think of it as a government version of Foursquare, with Big Brother cataloging every check-in.

“It starts to change the relationship between the citizen and state, you do have to get permission to do things,” said Chris Calabrese, a congressional lobbyist with the American Civil Liberties Union. “More fundamentally, it could be the start of keeping a record of all things.”

For now, the legislation allows the database to be used solely for employment purposes. But historically such limitations don’t last. The Social Security card, for example, was created to track your government retirement benefits. Now you need it to purchase health insurance.

“The Social Security number itself, it’s pretty ubiquitous in your life,” Calabrese said.

David Bier, an analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agrees with the ACLU’s fears.

“The most worrying aspect is that this creates a principle of permission basically to do certain activities and it can be used to restrict activities,” he said. “It’s like a national ID system without the card.”

For the moment, the debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee is focused on the parameters of legalization for unauthorized immigrants, a border fence and legal immigration in the future.”

-Source

Revelation 13: Federal Europe will be a reality in a few years, says Jose Manuel Barroso. VS. The UK Independence Party is here to stay, says Nigel Farage

May 7th, 2013. Federal Europe will be ‘a reality in a few years’, says Jose Manuel Barroso.  Bruno Waterfield, The Telegraph.

“The president of the European Commission has fanned the flames of British debate over EU membership by insisting that fiscal union in the eurozone will lead to “intensified political union” for all 27 member states.

“This is about the economic and monetary union but for the EU as a whole,” he said.

“The commission will, therefore, set out its views and explicit ideas for treaty change in order for them to be debated before the European elections.”

“We want to put all the elements on the table, in a clear and consistent way, even if some of them may sound like political science fiction today. They will be reality in a few years’ time.”

Mr Barroso’s announcement that he will set out plans for a European federation next spring, before elections to the European Parliament in May 2014, will further deepen Conservative divisions over the EU.”

-Source

May 5th, 2013. The UK Independence Party is here to stay, says Nigel Farage. BBC News.

“The UK Independence Party is “fundamentally changing British politics” with its goal of “getting our country back”, Nigel Farage has said.

The UKIP leader said the party was “here to stay” and offered a change from existing parties which were almost “merged” in terms of their policies.

There have been Tory calls to change course to win back voters who switched to UKIP in England’s local elections.

But Mr Farage said UKIP took votes from Labour and Lib Dems, not just Tories.

“We are the party with the broadest appeal across the country: north, south, east and west, old Labour voters, rural Tory voters, we are a genuinely national political party,” he told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show.

“Now, to succeed in Westminster in 2015 we’ve got to grow and build a lot from here – but please don’t think that it’s impossible and I promise you this, UKIP is here to stay.”

-Source

Boots on the Ground: First US Troops Arrive for Mali War

May 01, 2013. Boots on the Ground: First US Troops Arrive for Mali War,Troops Won’t Engage in Combat, Pentagon Insists. Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com

“From the moment France invaded Mali in January, the US has expressed “support,” but in a limited, troop transporting sort of way, while insisting that “boots on the ground” were never even being considered.

Wednesday marked the arrival of those first “boots,” in the form of US ground troops assigned to “liaison support” for French and African troops. Officials say so far there are only “about 10″ troops involved, but the number could grow as the war drags on.

Now instead of insisting the US won’t send ground troops, the Pentagon is simply claiming that those troops aren’t going to engage in direct combat, though exactly what they’re doing remains something of a mystery, with Socom commander Admiral McRaven refusing to provide specifics.

These sort of support missions, of course, have historically been a shoe-horn to much larger, open-ended military commitments, with the deployment of small numbers of military advisers setting the stage for decades of US involvement in Vietnam involving enormous military commitment. Though the US is still envisioning the Mali mission as small, France has already made it clear their forces are never leaving, and that this is an open-ended sort of war.”

-Source

On the National Day of Prayer, Rhode Island Governor signs bill making it the 10th state to legalize gay marriage

May 2nd, 2013. Rhode Island lawmakers pass gay marriage bill; governor signs it. Edith Honan, Reuters.

“Rhode Island lawmakers gave final approval to a bill to legalize gay marriage on Thursday, making it the 10th U.S. state to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples and the last of the six New England states to do so.

Governor Lincoln Chafee, an independent, signed the bill into law almost immediately after the vote on Thursday. The new law will take effect on August 1.

The governor later joined the state’s main gay rights organization, Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, at a victory party in the state capital Providence.

Last week, the Democratic-led state Senate approved the measure with the support of the entire Republican caucus. The state House had approved a similar bill in January and on Thursday approved the Senate’s amended bill.

Despite the victory, some in the state continued to voice strong opposition.

The vote marks the latest in a string of victories for gay marriage advocates. Last November, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington state approved same-sex marriage, while in Minnesota, voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Before that point, advocates of same-sex marriage had never been successful at the ballot box, and voters in more than two dozen states had approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Lawmakers in Illinois, Delaware and Minnesota have joined Rhode Island in taking up same-sex marriage legislation this year. In Delaware, the bill has passed the state’s lower house and is scheduled for a vote in the upper house on May 7.

New Jersey Democrats, meanwhile, have until next January to attempt to override Governor Chris Christie’s veto of a same-sex marriage bill in that state.

The other six states that have legalized same-sex marriage are Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa. The District of Columbia also has legalized same-sex marriage.”

-Source

May 2nd, 2013. Andrew Rafferty, NBC News.

“Lincoln Chafee is now calling on fellow governors to push for similar legislation to what passed in Rhode Island on Thursday, and calling for the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Though public opinion continues to turn in favor of same-sex marriage, legalizing it is still a heavy lift for many states.”

-Source

May 2nd, 2013. Katherine Gregg, Providence Journal.

“The Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage has denounced the General Assembly’s passage of legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry in Rhode Island.

“Redefining marriage into a genderless institution to satisfy the demands of a small but politically powerful group is short-sighted policy that fails to take into account the rights and needs of the generations to come,” said Christopher Plante, regional director of NOM Rhode Island.

“Children deserve to know and be cared for by a mom and dad,” Plante said. “This law will intentionally deny children one or the other. “The full impact may not be seen next week or next year, but our children will be the ones who pay the price for this decision.”

“Without robust legal protections to allow these faithful people and groups to maintain fidelity in the public square to their religious beliefs, we’re likely to see a raft of lawsuits and governmental action such as license revocations, fines and denial of governmental contracts to these faith-based groups and individuals.”

-Source

May 2nd, 2013. Susan Page, USA TODAY.

“Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, denies there is a national tide in support of marriage rights for gay couples.

“I don’t know that I would say Rhode Island is a trend,” Brown said, also questioning victories for supporters of gay-marriage initiatives in Maine, Maryland and Washington State last November. “Again, we’re talking about states that are not necessarily indicative of the rest of the country. These are pretty deep-blue, liberal states we’re talking about.”

Even so, Brown, the head of the leading national organization opposing same-sex marriage, finds himself playing defense as more Americans support same-sex marriage and more state legislatures debate measures authorizing it. In an interview on Capital Download, a weekly video series on usatoday.com, Brown blasted “cultural elites” for demonizing supporters of traditional marriage and warned Republican officeholders of the perils of supporting same-sex marriage proposals.”

-Source

‘Smart guns’ could be next step in gun control (RFID)

April 23rd, 2013. ‘Smart guns’ could be next step in gun control. Logan Whiteside, CNN.

“A proposal to expand background checks failed in Washington, but several entrepreneurs say they have a different answer to curbing gun violence.

They’re using technology to create guns that only fire in the right hands. These so-called smart guns can recognize a watch, a ring or even just a grip.

For more than a decade, researchers at the New Jersey Institute of Technology have been working on a grip-recognizing gun similar to the one James Bond uses in “Skyfall.”

Sensors on the grip — similar to the touchpad on a laptop — measure the pressure applied and the size and shape of the hand holding the gun.

“If a child tries to grab the gun, their hand geometry is actually going to be smaller,” said NJIT Associate Professor Michael Recce. “So they’re not going to touch the sensors, and they’re not going to be able to fire the gun.”

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 232,000 guns are stolen every year. Recce says these criminals would not be able to use a grip-recognizing gun.

Another company, Armatix, uses radio frequency technology in its weapons, which unlock with a watch and a PIN. If someone who isn’t wearing the watch grabs the gun, it immediately deactivates.

“Anybody who picks up the handgun, whether it’s a child or it’s actively stolen, they can’t activate the watch,” said Belinda Padilla, president and CEO of Armatix USA.

Armatix already sells these personalized guns in Europe and Asia.

Triggersmart, founded by Irish entrepreneur Robert McNamara, also uses radio frequency technology to enable — and disable — guns. The chip that activates the gun can be placed in a ring, bracelet or potentially even embedded in the owner’s hand.

Personalized weapons makers say their products are effective and inexpensive. But even so, none are available in the United States, due to lack of demand from gun makers and owners.

With guns in the national spotlight, that could soon change. These entrepreneurs have discussed their technology with the attorney general, and Obama touted smart guns in his 23-point plan to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

Several other gun control measures — including background checks and an assault weapon ban — recently failed, but smart guns are still on the table. Rep. John Tierney, a Massachusetts Democrat, plans to introduce a House bill in the next few weeks requiring that all guns include personalization technology within two years.

The smart-gun makers say their products could have prevented the tragedy in Newtown, but critics are doubtful.

“The firearms were accessible to Adam Lanza. They should not have been,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “If [Mrs. Lanza] had one that had this sort of authorized user recognition onboard the firearm, presumably he would’ve had access to that.”

Keane isn’t completely against personalized weapons, but he says the technology isn’t reliable enough yet and could even make guns more dangerous.

“It can actually encourage people to leave loaded firearms accessible, relying upon the technology which can fail at the most inopportune time,” he said.

-Source

January 24th, 2013. Biden Looks to ‘Smart Guns’ as White House Moves to Curb Firearms. Todd Beamon, Newsmax.com

“Vice President Joe Biden said he was interested in technology that would keep a gun from being fired by anyone other than the person who bought it.

Technology for so-called “smart guns” is being developed, although, so far there has been little demand for it. Various techniques such as fingerprint recognition or the wearing of a magnetic ring would prevent anyone other than a weapon’s registered owner from firing it.

The National Rifle Association and other groups have come out against smart guns in the past and did not respond to a New York Times article on the subject that week.”

-Source

US to increase aid to Syrian rebels after key group merges with al-Qaeda

April 10th, 2013. US to increase aid to Syrian rebels after key group merges with al-Qaeda. Ed Morrissey, Hotair.com.

“For some reason, American politicians in both parties want to see the US intervene to some extent in Syria’s civil war, even after the disastrous intervention in Libya that almost made Mali an al-Qaeda state.  Only a French military intervention prevented that outcome, and that may still only be temporary, but more on that in a minute.  The Associated Press reports that the Obama administration will increase “non-lethal” aid to Syrian rebels in the near future, although the timing is still murky:

The Obama administration’s next step in aid to Syrian rebels is expected to be a broader package of nonlethal assistance, including body armor and night-vision goggles, as the U.S. grapples for ways to stem the bloodshed from Syria’s civil war.

Administration officials say an announcement of the new aid is not imminent. But Secretary of StateJohn Kerry says the administration had been holding intense talks on how to boost assistance to the rebels fighting forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“Those efforts have been very much front and center in our discussions in the last week in Washington,” Kerry said Tuesday, a day before meeting with Syrian opposition leaders in London. “I’m not sure what the schedule is, but I do believe that it’s important for us to try to continue to put the pressure on President Assad and to try to change his calculation.”

The United Nations estimates more than 70,000 people have been killed during more than two years of fighting between rebels and government forces.

Britain and France have already been shipping armor, night-vision goggles and other military-style equipment to the rebels.

Er, this isn’t “military-style” equipment.  It’s actual military equipment, and while it won’t kill anyone directly, its use isn’t for hunting squirrels and possum, either. The use of that equipment is intended to make the rebel forces more lethal, and its provision allows the rebels to use their existing funds on guns and artillery to pair up with all that non-lethal equipment.

And just who are the rebel forces fighting in Syria?  The most effective of them, Jabhat al-Nusra, just announced a merger with al-Qaeda in Iraq, the very forces we spent most of a decade fighting just across the border.  In fact, our partners in Baghdad are still fighting AQI:

The leader of an Islamic extremist rebel group in Syria pledged allegiance on Wednesday to al-Qaida and its leader for the first time.

Abu Mohammad al-Golani, head of Jabhat al-Nusra or the Nusra Front, confirmed his rebel group was tied to al-Qaida in Iraq in an audio message posted on militant websites.

Al-Qaida in Iraq said Tuesday it had joined forces with the Nusra Front — the most effective of a disparate patchwork of rebel groups fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad. He said the new alliance would be called the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

In my column for The Week, I marvel at the inability of both the Obama administration and both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to learn a lesson from the results of the lightweight intervention in Libya:

Terrorist networks in eastern Libya, which had once provided al Qaeda in Iraq with thousands of suicidal recruits, had barely been controlled by Gadhafi; after his fall, they took over the entire area. Western nations, including our NATO partners, bailed out of the same Benghazi the intervention had been designed to protect, and the U.S. lost its consulate and four Americans to a terrorist attack there. The terrorist networks then turned their attention to neighboring Mali and sacked Timbuktu, forcing the French to stage a military intervention to keep al Qaeda from creating a terrorist state.

One might think that because of this, the doctrine of disengaged interventions had been completely discredited. Not so. The U.S. continues to mull over a replay of the Libya intervention in Syria, where the tyrant Bashar al-Assad is trying to retain his grip on power in the middle of a civil war. Politicians in both parties have urged President Obama to arm the rebels, fund the opposition, and/or impose no-fly zones to cripple Assad’s military capabilities.

Once again, however, this intervention would end up benefiting the same enemies we have fought since 9/11 — al Qaeda and its affiliates. The leading militia in the Syrian opposition is Jabhat al-Nusra, which the State Department belatedly added to its list of terrorist organizations last year. The Nusra Front has been imposing strict shari’a law every place it “liberates,” as The Washington Post reported three weeks ago. This week, Jabhat al-Nusra made it official by declaring a merger with al Qaeda in Iraq.

As I wrote yesterday, our “sovereign partner” in Iraq can’t believe the US still hasn’t learned its lesson about low-footprint interventions and terrorism:

In the same essay, Maliki marveled at how the U.S. could possibly consider siding with the Syrian opposition when the U.S. and Iraq are trying to stamp out its affiliates across the border. “We have been mystified by what appears to be the widespread belief in the United States that any outcome in Syria that removes President Bashar al-Assad from power will be better than the status quo,” Maliki wrote. “A Syria controlled in whole or part by al Qaeda and its affiliates — an outcome that grows more likely by the day — would be more dangerous to both our countries than anything we’ve seen up to now.” To press his point, Maliki pointed to another minimal-footprint intervention of a generation earlier. “Americans should remember,” Maliki warned, “that an unintended consequence of arming insurgents in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets was turning the country over to the Taliban and al Qaeda.”

Assad is a brutal dictator, no question — but will a rebellion led by al-Qaeda be a better replacement?  Maybe we should answer that before dropping “military-style” equipment that will make AQ more effective.”

-Source

Ark Senate sends bill to allow raw milk sales to governor, and North Carolina pushing for raw milk

April 10th, 2013. Senate sends bill to allow raw milk sales to governor. John Lyon and Rob Moritz, Arkansas News Bureau.

“Dairies in Arkansas could begin selling unpasteurized milk if a bill that won final legislative approval Wednesday in the Senate becomes law.

By a 19-11 vote, the Senate passed House Bill 1536, which would allow Arkansas milk producers to sell up to 500 gallons of raw milk a month at their facilities.

“This bill simply gives the farmer the freedom, the right, to sell milk from his cow to someone who wants to buy it,” said Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch, who presented the bill on the Senate floor.

He said more than 30 states have laws allowing for the sale of unpasteurized milk.

The bill by Rep. Randy Alexander, R-Fayetteville, has no requirement for state health inspections but does require dairies that sell unpasteurized milk to display warnings at the point of sale and on milk containers informing consumers that the milk has not been pasteurized and that the milk and the farm have not been inspected by the state.

The state Health Department opposes the measure, which it says could expose consumers to dangerous pathogens. Supporters say duly warned adults who want raw milk should be able to buy it from producers that want to sell it.

Sen. David Burnett, D-Osceola, expressed concern about there not being any inspections on the milk to be sure it’s safe. A former prosecutor and circuit court judge, Burnett also suggested the farmer who sells the milk could be liable if someone becomes ill after drinking the milk.

The bill, which passed the House by 60-19 last week, now goes to the governor.”

-Source

April 10th, 2013. Bill filed to allow raw milk sales. Mark Binker, wral.com.

“North Carolina residents would be able to buy raw, unpasteurized milk under a bill filed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers.

The measure was filed by Reps. Dennis Riddell, R-Alamance, Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, Edgar Starnes, R-Caldwell, and Jo Sam Queen, D-Haywood. It would allow residents to buy shares in a lactating animal in order to obtain its unpasteurized milk.

Raw milk can be sold in North Carolina but only for animal feed and only if marked and dyed in order to discourage human consumption.

However, some natural food advocates extol what they see as the health benefits of not subjecting milk to pasteurization. They have pushed for a number of raw milk legalization measures over the past decade, none of which have passed.

“It became an interest to me when a Christian ministry I represent in Alamance County asked me about it,” Riddle said. The ministry wanted to train missionaries to keep live animals and use their milk. Health officials, he said, told them they could not.

That initial spark lead to more research he said.

“It’s about the only food I can think of that’s illegal,” Riddle said. Some people grew up drinking raw milk and like it, he said. Other simply like it better or think it’s healthier. His bill, Riddle said, would simply give them to choice of what to consume.

Health and agriculture officials warn that choice is risky.

“There’s a lot of evidence that raw milk can be dangerous,” said Brian Long, a spokesman for the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. He said the department has not seen the bill filed Wednesday but said generally the department has supported the existing ban on the consumption of raw milk.

“I’m not choosing a fight with the Department of Agriculture,” Riddle said. But he pointed out that farmers are allowed to consume raw milk collected on their farms. “If we’re concerned about health, aren’t we concerned about the farmers’ health?”

-Source

Montana raw milk bill moving ahead

April 7th, 2013. Montana raw milk bill moving ahead. The AP, billingsgazette.com.

“A bill that would legalize the sale of raw milk from small unregulated dairies has gained the approval of the House and is moving through the Montana Legislature.

House Bill 574 supporters say the bill is part of a growing movement which encourages locally grown, organic food; farmer accountability; and personal responsibility. They say pasteurization strips milk of its healthy enzymes and are frustrated with the government’s prohibition of the drink.

Critics include state regulators and federal agencies that warn raw milk contains dangerous bacteria and allowing unregulated dairies to sell raw milk will increase incidences of serious illnesses across the state.

The measure is scheduled to face the Senate Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation this week and supporters say it’s likely to receive a positive outcome.”

-Source

Kentucky Gov lets hemp bill become law without his signature, And NH Senate considering industrial hemp bill

April 6th, 2013. Beshear lets Kentucky hemp bill become law without his signature. Beth Musgrave, kentucky.com.

“Gov. Steve Beshear said Friday that he will allow a bill that would establish a legal framework for the growing of industrial hemp to become law without his signature.

At a press conference on an unrelated topic, Beshear said that he supported efforts to expand Kentucky’s economy but he shared concerns of the law enforcement community that allowing the growing of hemp could hurt police efforts to crack down on marijuana cultivation, a close cousin of hemp. He would allow the bill to become law without his signature, he said.

“I strongly support efforts to create additional legal cash crops for our farm communities,” Beshear said. “At the same time, we have a tremendous drug problem in Kentucky, and I want to make sure that we don’t do anything that will increase that drug problem. I still share the same concerns our law enforcement officers have about the impact hemp cultivation may have on our drug eradication efforts.”

The federal government must lift the ban on growing industrial hemp before a farmer could grow the crop that was once prominent in Kentucky, Beshear added.

Republican Agriculture Commissioner James Comer — who pushed for the passage of Senate Bill 50 — said he and others, including U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, will urge the Drug Enforcement Administration to issue a waiver for Kentucky to start growing industrial hemp as soon as possible. Few waivers to grow industrial hemp have been granted in the United States.

Senate Bill 50 passed in the final hours of the 30-day legislative session last week. The 11th-hour compromise bill would give the Kentucky State Police the authority to do background checks on farmers who apply to grow hemp. The Kentucky Department of Agriculture will handle licenses and testing .

The University of Kentucky will also have a key role with research and development.

Supporters of Senate Bill 50 say that hemp could provide much-needed jobs and cash for Kentucky farmers if a federal ban on the growing of hemp is lifted.

But House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, and others questioned whether hemp production would create the jobs its backers said it would create. Stumbo ultimately voted for Senate Bill 50.”

-Source

April 7th, 2013. NH Senate considering industrial hemp bill. The AP, wcax.com.

“New Hampshire’s Senate is considering a House-passed bill that would protect industrial hemp from being tagged as an illicit drug.

The House tried last year to get the Senate to agree to a similar bill, but the Senate instead voted to study the measure. The Senate holds a hearing on the bill Thursday.

The latest House bill would forbid industrial hemp, a botanical cousin to marijuana, from being listed as a controlled substance.

Supporters say hemp was once an important crop in the United States, but has not been grown in New Hampshire for decades. They say the plant has lower levels of THC, a principal chemical in cannabis, than marijuana and can be used for a variety of non-illicit products.”

-Source

Arkansas House OKs sale of unpasteurized milk

April 6th, 2013. Arkansas House OKs sale of unpasteurized milk. The AP, Thv11.com.

“A proposal to allow Arkansas farmers to sell unpasteurized milk has won approval from the state House.

Lawmakers on Saturday voted 60-19 to permit the sale of “raw” milk from cows and goats at the farms where it’s produced. Farmers would be allowed to sell up to 500 gallons per month on average.

Supporters of the legislation, which was sponsored by Republican Rep. Randy Alexander, said the government shouldn’t restrict consumers’ freedom to purchase unpasteurized milk.

Opponents warned raw milk presents an unnecessary public health risk. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tells consumers to avoid raw milk because it can carry harmful bacteria and other germs.

As of last year, at least 30 states allowed the sale of unpasteurized milk, according to the National Conference for State Legislatures.”

-Source