An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America

Monday, June 5, 2017

1:10 PM

Dear President Trump,

I am a concerned citizen. The reason I am concerned is because of the number of mosques in our country. There are videos and sites all over the internet that show what is found when some of these supposed places of worship are inspected.

The fact is ISIS is here in this country and they are preparing for something. There is proof of military style training camps all over the country and they all have one thing in common. If you are trying to gain access to their property to ask questions or have a look around you are met with resistance which is usually armed.

The state of Michigan is in dire straits in certain towns like Dearborn and others where muslims have taken over the city council and changed laws to fit their beliefs. It appears  that the state of Michigan is soon to be their so called caliphate for our country. The writing is on the wall.

My solution to this growing problem is to ban the Quron in its present form and, using a special task force made up of local law enforcement, plan and execute surprise inspections of all mosques in this country.

If there really is such a thing as a “peaceful muslim” legally here then it is their patriotic duty to assimilate to our culture and values. It is our Constitutional law and we should accept nothing less.

Thank you for your time on these matters Mr. President. I know you don’t broadcast what you are planning but it sure would be nice to wake up to this news someday.

Yours in Patriotism,                                                                                                                    Curtis Hutson

Two years after the DEA admitted marijuana is less dangerous than heroin, Jeff Sessions would like to reconsider

March 15 at 2:58 PM

Less than two years after the Drug Enforcement Administration officially admitted that “heroin is clearly more dangerous than marijuana,” new Attorney General Jeff Sessions revisited that comparison in remarks today before law enforcement officials in Richmond:

I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store. And I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana — so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that’s only slightly less awful. Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs will destroy your life.

Sessions remarks are contradicted by a wealth of medical and policy research.

For starters, researchers and policymakers aren’t suggesting that marijuana legalization will “solve” the heroin crisis. As I noted late last month, there is, however, abundant, peer-reviewed evidence suggesting that legalizing medical marijuana has led to decreases in opioid overdose and mortality rates in a number of states.
Video of Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaking equating Marijuana to Heroin

Sessions: ‘We don’t need to be legalizing marijuana’

 

Expressing his views on drug policy, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said marijuana legalization wouldn’t be “good for us.” He also doubted reports of marijuana’s effectiveness fighting opioid addiction, adding “we need to crack down more on heroin.” (Reuters)

And my list is already out-of-date: A new report published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence last month found opioid hospitalizations decreased in states that allowed medical marijuana. Furthermore, those states saw no increase in the incidence of marijuana-related hospitalizations.

That speaks to Sessions’s second point: that marijuana dependency is “only slightly less awful” than heroin addiction. Drug dependency of any kind is, indeed, awful. And marijuana dependency is quite real.

But there is a spectrum of “awful”-ness of drug dependency, and evidence and common sense suggest marijuana and heroin are miles apart. For starters, heroin is lethal and kills 13,000 of its users each year. Nobody ODs on marijuana alone.

Second, the federal government’s own research undermines any equivalency between dependency on marijuana and heroin. You can often gauge how bad a given drug addiction is by looking at what happens when a user tries to kick the habit. For heroin, the National Institute on Drug Abuse lists withdrawal symptoms including “muscle and bone pain, sleep problems, diarrhea and vomiting, cold flashes with goose bumps, uncontrollable leg movements severe heroin cravings.”

Heroin withdrawal is so bad that users occasionally die from it, particularly in harsh criminal justice environments where they’re unable to receive medical care.For marijuana, on the other hand, major withdrawal symptoms include “grouchiness, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety cravings.”Grouchiness and decreased appetite seem far — not “slightly” — less awful than severe pain and possible death.

Finally, researchers have generally ranked marijuana use as far less harmful to individuals and society than heroin use. In a 2010 Lancet report, dozens of researchers and public health experts rated the harm potential of a variety of drugs on a 0 to 100 scale, with 100 being the most harmful. Heroin scored in the mid-50s. Marijuana was rated at a 20.

Sessions’s remarks are “a sort of starting gun for a new war on drugs,” according to Michael Collins of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group working to reform drug laws. “It’s very disappointing that this DOJ and this attorney general are so anti-science and anti-evidence and anti-facts.”
Video on Legal Medicinal Marijuana States

How marijuana legalization in Washington, Colorado and Oregon is working out so far

Voters in California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada just approved recreational marijuana use. Here’s what they can learn from Washington, Colorado and Oregon, states where marijuana use has already been legalized. (Daron Taylor, Danielle Kunitz/The Washington Post)

Jeff Sessions: “Medical Marijuana has Been Hyped, Maybe too Much”, Marijuana “Slightly Less Awful” than Heroin

Bills that would legalize medical cannabis have been filed in West Virginia’s House of Delegates and Senate.

March 06, 2017

Delegate Mike Pushkin (D) filed House Bill 2677, and Senator Richard Ojeda (D) filed Senate Bill 386. Both would legalize medical cannabis, albeit in different manners. HB 2688 has no cosponsors, whereas SB 386 is cosponsored by a bipartisan coalition of nine senators.

HB 2677 would legalize the possession of up to six ounces of cannabis, and the cultivation of up to 12 plants, for those with a qualifying condition who receive a recommendation from a physician. Qualifying conditions include:

(A) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, agitation of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, addiction to opiates or amphetamines or the treatment of these conditions;

(B) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces one or more of the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe or chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including, but not limited to, those characteristic of multiple sclerosis; or

(C) Any other medical condition or its treatment added by the department, as provided in section six of this article.

The proposal would established a system of licensed and regulated cannabis dispensaries, as a means of safe access to the medicine.

SB 386 would also legalize medical cannabis – including license dispensaries – but in a more limited way. Qualifying conditions include:

(A) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition that results in a patient being admitted into hospice or receiving palliative care; or

(B) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or the treatment of a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition that produces:

(i) Cachexia, anorexia, or wasting syndrome;

(ii) Severe or chronic pain that does not find effective relief through standard pain medication;

(iii) Severe nausea;

(iv) Seizures; or

(v) Severe or persistent muscle spasms.

 

HB 2677 has been assigned to the House Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse Committee. SB 386 has been assigned to the Senate Health and Human Resources.

Bipartisan Legislation to End Federal Marijuana Prohibition Filed in U.S. Congress

A bill to end the prohibition of marijuana on the federal level has been filed in Congress with bipartisan support.

memphisThe Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017 was filed by Representatives Tom Garrett (R-VA) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI). It would remove marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances, which would end its prohibition on the federal level, allowing states to decide what marijuana policies they want to follow.

The proposal is identical to a measure filed in 2015 by Senator Bernie Sanders.

“I have long believed justice that isn’t blind, isn’t justice”, Representative Garett said in press release about the bill’s introduction. “Statistics indicate that minor narcotics crimes disproportionately hurt areas of lower socio-economic status and what I find most troubling is that we continue to keep laws on the books that we do not enforce. Virginia is more than capable of handling its own marijuana policy, as are states such as Colorado or California.”

Garrett continued; “this step allows states to determine appropriate medicinal use and allows for industrial hemp growth, something that will provide a major economic boost to agricultural development in Southside Virginia. In the coming weeks, I anticipate introducing legislation aimed at growing the hemp industry in Virginia, something that is long overdue.”

The post Bipartisan Legislation to End Federal Marijuana Prohibition Filed in U.S. Congress appeared first on TheJointBlog.com.

A Congressional Cannabis Caucus Is Born | NORML Blog

With public support for reforming marijuana laws at an all time high, Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), and Don Young (R-AK) have formed the first-ever Congressional Cannabis Caucus to promote sensible cannabis policy reform and to ease the tension between federal and state cannabis laws.

The official establishment of a Congressional Cannabis Caucus represents yet another step forward toward ultimately reforming cannabis policy at the federal level. The creation of this caucus is yet another manifestation that our political power is growing — even inside the beltway.

Click here to email your Congressional Representative and urge them to join the Cannabis Caucus today.

[…]

Entire post at the Source: A Congressional Cannabis Caucus Is Born

Marijuana industry, angered by White House reversal, speaks out “It just defies logic”

The cannabis industry was rattled Thursday after White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said he expects the Department of Justice to increase enforcement of federal laws prohibiting recreational pot, even in states where it’s already legal.

Along with the District of Columbia, eight states have legalized recreational use among adults, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada just this past November. That means one in five American adults can smoke, vape, drink, or eat cannabis as they please under state law.

Meanwhile, over half of the nation’s states have legalized medical marijuana despite federal laws prohibiting its sale. The industry is estimated to be worth north of $6 billion and will hit $50 billion by 2026, according to Cowen & Co.

“Today’s news coming out of the administration regarding the adult use of cannabis is, of course, disappointing,” Derek Peterson, CEO of marijuana cultivator Terra Tech Corp., said Thursday in a statement. “We have hoped and still hope that the federal government will respect states’ rights in the same manner they have on several other issues.”

Spicer sought to distinguish the prospect of federal enforcement for medical, versus recreational, cannabis use, saying “there’s still a federal law that we need to abide by when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.”

Spicer’s statements reanimated industry concern that first arose when Republican President Donald Trump’s short-list of potential attorney general nominees emerged. The final pick, former senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a Republican, has long opposed cannabis use, but is a major proponent of state’s rights.

In his mid-January confirmation hearing, Sessions said he wouldn’t “commit to never enforcing federal law” but added that “absolutely it’s a problem of resources for the federal government.” He said that if Congress felt marijuana possession should no longer be illegal, it “should pass a law.” Trump has similarly gone back and forth on the issue of legalization.

Read the rest of the article at the Source:  Marijuana industry, angered by White House reversal, speaks out “It just defies logic”

New Hampshire the 12th State to Allow Constitutional Carry

Residents of New Hampshire are enjoying a long-awaited expansion of their Second Amendment rights with the signing into law on Wednesday of a bill allowing them to carry a firearm without first obtaining government permission. The third time “is a charm,” it is said, and this bill passed on the third attempt. The previous two attempts passed both state houses but were vetoed by previous Democrat governors. […]

via New Hampshire the 12th State to Allow Constitutional Carry — Reclaim Our Republic

Vermont Marijuana Legalization Bill to Receive Public Hearing on Thursday

A bill that would legalize marijuana for those 21 and older will receive a public hearing in Vermont’s House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, February 23rd.

Vermont Marijuana LegalizationThe committee will hold their public hearing on House Bill 170 at 1pm on Thursday. The measure would legalize the possession of up to two ounces of cannabis and the personal cultivation of up to two cannabis plants, as well as a regulated system of cannabis retail outlets.

Below is a list of speakers that have been invited by lawmakers to either support or oppose the measure:

  • Michele Childs, Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Council
  • Matt Simon, Legislative Analyst, Marijuana Policy Project
  • Major Glenn Hall, Commander, Bureau of Criminal Investigations, Vermont State Police
  • Robert Sand, Vermont Law School
  • Greg Nagurney, Attorney, Department of State’s Attorneys & Sheriffs
  • Laura Subin, Director, Vermont Coalition to Regulate Marijuana
  • Tim Trevithick, Student Assistance Program, SAM-VT 
  • George Merkel, Chief of Police, Vermont Police Association
  • Cary Giguere, Agrichemical Program Manager, Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets
  • Robin Weber, Senior Research Associate, Crime Research Group
  • Jay Diaz, Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union – Vermont
  • David Cahill, State’s Attorney, Windsor County
  • Dr. Jill Rinehart, MD, FAAP, President, American Academy of Pediatrics, Vermont Chapter
  • Barbara Cimaglio, Deputy Commissioner, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program,Vermont Department of Health
  • Shayla Livingston, Public Health Analyst, Department of Health
  • Marshall Pahl, Appellate and Juvenile Defender, Defender General’s Office
  • Monique McHenry, Executive Director, VT Patients Alliance

Legislation receiving a public hearing is a necessary step to it being passed out of committee; the vast majority of bills never receive a hearing.

Vermont is one of the five states we believe could legalize cannabis by next year.

Prospectors Fight for Rights in Black Hills

Forest Service cites fairy slipper orchid as reason to ban new mining claims

 

Prospectors fight for rights in Black Hills

By SARAH REIJONEN
For the GPAA

The U.S. Forest Service proposed nearly 18,000 acres of land in the Black Hills National Forest to be “withdrawn from mineral entry,” which means no new mining claims would be allowed.

 The proposal was recorded in the Federal Register on Sept. 24, 2015, but Sam Griner, a member of the Northern Hills Prospectors — a local chapter of the Gold Prospectors Association of America — said he wouldn’t have even known about the proposed withdrawal had he not scanned the Forest Service’s Schedule of Planned Action (SOPA) website.

 “They were surprised that anybody had caught it,” Griner said. “They expected it to just go through. The Travel Management Plan … just went through and nobody knew to comment on it. It went unchecked and nobody made any comments.”

 The Travel Management Plan that the Forest Service issued back in 2010 shut down roads, affecting area prospectors but primarily impacting hunters, Griner said.

After learning about the proposal to designate nearly 18,000 acres as new Research Natural Areas (RNA) and Botanical Areas (BA), Griner took action action, attending public meetings and sending letters of opposition to nearly every agency and public official he could think of. The public comment period for the proposed mineral withdrawal closed Dec. 23, 2015.

 Griner attended a National Forest Advisory Board Meeting on March 16 at the Mystic Ranger District to oppose the withdrawal. During the meeting, Deputy Forest Supervisor Jerry Krueger said that if approved, the mineral withdrawal would last for two decades. After 20 years, the Forest Service would have to reapply with the Bureau of Land Management for another withdrawal, according to the meeting minutes. Because BLM manages the minerals within the Black Hills National Forest, it — along with the Secretary of the Interior — must give approval for the withdrawal.

 In response to Griner’s land closure concerns, Former Black Hills National Forest Supervisor Craig Bobzien said, “What we are also doing is preserving. During the Forest Planning process in 2005, we found that a number of these areas should be preserved,” according to the meeting minutes. But, Krueger said the plan to withdraw the various sites from mineral entry goes back as far as the late ’90s.

 Northern Hills Prospectors President James Van Hout said the Forest Service’s response to the prospector’s concerns has been disingenuous, at best.

 “They just give us lip service, ‘Oh yeah, we’ll take your comments and concerns and we’ll discuss them,’ ” Van Hout said. “We know exactly where they went. They went into file 13 because they weren’t what they wanted to hear, and we know that. We’re not stupid.”

Van Hout said the Forest Service geologist treated prospectors with the same attitude during a meeting with the agency last October about the areas where mining would be banned.

 “Their geologist had the gall and thought we were just stupid. He made the statement that the U.S. Geological Survey says there’s no minable minerals,” Van Hout said. “I plainly asked him, ‘Have you tested it personally?’ He said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Then how do you know there’s not?’ Boots on the ground is the only way you’re going to find out. Then, I asked him how old the report was. The ’50s? And, he didn’t deny it.”

Furthermore, the report related to commercial mining, not prospecting and small-scale mining, Van Hout said.

 “Basically, the report was saying there’s no commercially viable minerals there, meaning no large mining company is going to want to go in and mine it because it us such rough territory and terrain that it would be cost prohibitive for them to go in and mine,” Van Hout said. “But for the small miner, there’s lots of gold in there. Seventeen of 22 of the largest nuggets that came out the Black Hills came out of the major area they want to close.”

 At the same October meeting in Rapid City, Krueger said: “We need to take special measures to protect them [Black Hills] in terms of what can occur there, and so one of the concerns is commercial mineral withdrawal entry,” according to a news report by KEVN Black Hills FOX.

 Krueger later said that it was not the Forest Service’s intention to keep out the small-scale miner, but that because of the way the mining laws are written, there is no distinction between small-scale miners and commercial miners.

 “Initially, we thought that by doing the mineral withdrawal that it would not affect the recreational prospecting groups,” Krueger said. “When we pursued that —again through the public meetings — we were asked to take a look at that through legal channels. The mineral withdrawal covered any mineral withdrawal within these designated areas, and that included recreational prospecting.”

 Although prospectors may not feel like their voices are being heard, Krueger said they managed to get the withdrawal area down from nearly 18,000 acres to 11,000 acres by negotiating terms of the contract with BLM.

 “During the public meetings, which included members of your group, we received feedback that they would like us to pursue in terms of the legal description,” Krueger said. “We’re trying to capture a non-linear polygon with a square block legal description.”

Initially, BLM instructed the Forest Service to submit the proposed withdrawal using a minimum size of 40-acre blocks, so everywhere a 40-acre block touched the perimeter of the withdrawal, the Forest Service had to include that 40 acres. But, the Forest Service was able to negotiate the legal description down to 2.5-acre blocks, Krueger said.

 “It really helped us all out. We could much more accurately capture the research footprint of the Research Natural Area or Botanical Area using a much smaller legal description,” Krueger said.

 According to the Forest Service website, the RNA areas “were selected because of their relatively pristine nature and form part of a national network of ecological areas designated in perpetuity for non-manipulative research, education and biodiversity conservation. Botanical Areas were selected because of unique biological features and rare natural communities.”

 One of these “unique biological features” includes the calypso bulbosa, also known as the “fairy slipper orchid,” which has a G5 national rating and a S3 state rating, according to the South Dakota Game Fish and Parks website. The scale runs from 1 to 5 with 5 being the most plentiful and 1 being the scarcest. The flower has held a G5 ranking for more than a decade, according to the Forest Service website, which noted that the species is “secure, widespread and abundant” in the United States.

 Still, these Cinderella sounding flora are being used as a premise to ban new mining claims.

 “Among those are the lesser yellow lady slipper, which is one of my personal favorites,” Black Hills National Forest Botanist Chelsea Monks said in an interview with South Dakota Public Broadcast. “But, the neat thing about these areas is not just the species that are there, but the assemblage of species that are there, meaning there are species that are co-occurring that don’t normally occur together. So, that’s one of the values that we designated these areas to preserve.”

 Monks is responsible for taking public comments on the proposed withdrawal and oversees the Botanical Areas within the Black Hills National Forest. The orchids may not be endangered, but they are a favorite meal for deer, Van Hout said.

 “Deer love to eat [the fairy slipper] because of the vanilla aroma to it,” Van Hout said. “You can go down one draw, and there will be huge numbers of this flower. You can go over the next ridge into the next draw and you won’t find any or just a few, so they go into those and go, ‘Oh dear, this is a scarce flower.’ It’s ridiculous.”

 Krueger said there is no actual risk of endangerment for the plant life in these areas. Instead, the main purpose for withdrawal is scientific study and preservation.

 “So I guess, in the current management scheme there is no threat. All we’re looking to do with this is to remove the potential for development, which would disturb the sites,” Krueger said.

 The Forest Service currently has five Research Natural Areas and eight Botanical Areas in and around the Black Hills National Forest. Four of the five RNAs were designated in September 2011, including: Hay Creek in Crook County, Wyoming; Fanny/Boles in Custer County, South Dakota; and Canyon City and North Fork Castle Creek in Pennington County, South Dakota.

 Withdrawal means that no new mining claims can be staked, but creating RNAs and BAs have the added limitation of only allowing non-motorized transportation, meaning these areas can only be reached via horseback or on foot, according to the Black Hills National Forest’s online brochure titled “What are Research Natural Areas and Botanical Areas?” This problem with access also came up in 2010 when the Forest Service issued its new Travel Management Plan.

 “What really ticked me off is that they won’t allow disabled people to get to the claim. Everybody else can get to the claim, but it’s the disabled people who are a part of that club who can’t get to the claim, and the Forest Service isn’t doing anything about it,” Griner said. “That’s what really put me over the top and what really drove me.”

 However, Krueger said the proposed withdrawal to designate RNA and BA areas would not modify the existing Travel Management Plan.

 “I don’t have a map that overlays the current Travel Management Plan over the Botanical Areas or the Research Natural Areas, but I can tell you — knowing how many trails we have in the forest and how many roads we have — that I’m quite sure that there are existing trails or roads in those areas.”

 Griner has enlisted the help of the American Mining Rights Association to deal with this potential withdrawal. In fact, Griner was one of the first miners to call on AMRA for support three years ago when the Forest Service first started shutting down roads and access to mining claims in his area, said AMRA President Shannon Poe.

 “The Forest Service is trying to claim all these different flowers, and it’s all pushed by the environmental movement,” Poe said. “They just want to close all this land where these people have mining claims. They’ve been gating and locking and blocking. It’s the same story over and over again. It is frustrating, because he’s reached out to senators, representatives, and he’s not getting a lot of help or traction. Something we’re going to bring a lot more attention to moving forward is putting pressure on lawmakers to step up and help the people they’re supposed to represent.”

 Aside from getting AMRA involved, Van Hout said it is important to recruit fellow outdoor users.

 “We need to start getting the horseback riding groups and biking groups and hunters and fisherman involved,” Van Hout said. “Mining is the main target, but they’re a target, too. They started with the Travel Management Plan. The hunters used to be able to drive to their certain areas and then walk around and hunt, but now have to walk in two or three miles to get to their favorite hunting grounds. I don’t know if you’ve tried to drag a deer or elk three miles … They’ve hit the hunters a little bit, but they’ll hit everybody pretty soon.”

 According to the Forest Service’s Schedule of Planned Actions, a decision is to be made concerning the ban on new mining claims September next year.

 “September 2017 is two years from the date the Notice of Application for Withdrawal was published in the Federal Register and is the date by which the BLM should make a decision of whether or not to withdraw the areas,” Monks stated in an email correspondence with Griner on Aug. 25. “Right now the Forest Service interdisciplinary team is working on analysis for this project and does not yet have findings. Once we have completed our analysis, the Regional Forester will send a recommendation to the BLM and they will make the final decision.”

 The butting of heads with federal agencies has been rampant across the West in the past few years, but Van Hout said it has never been a problem in the Black Hills until now, and he definitely sees a shift in dynamics, he said.

 “We never had to deal with this … The Black Hills have always been pretty much conservative. You did what you want to do as long as you weren’t stepping on anybody’s toes or causing problems. They left everybody alone,” Van Hout said. “The new Forest Service — they’re starting to close us down now. They haven’t closed us yet, but they’re trying.”

 Griner said he feels stabbed in the back by an agency that is supposed to be representative of the people and working for the people.

 “With some people, you give them a bow and arrow for a present and they give you a T-shirt with a bulls-eye on it,” Griner said.

 Sarah Reijonen is a freelance writer based in California. She can be reached  at sarahreijonen@yahoo.com.

 BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST

Rules & Restrictions

Activities allowed in Recreational National Areas (RNA):

• Dispersed Recreation: Non-motorized / Non-mechanized dispersed use including hunting and fishing is allowed without developments such as trails or signs

• Research: Research methods are non-destructive and non-manipulative.

• Education: Opportunities are available to learn about natural processes using methods that are non-destructive and non-manipulative.

• Transportation: Foot and horse travel only

• Vegetation Management: Vegetation management including livestock grazing is used only as needed to conserve the biological characteristics for which the RNA was established using methods with the least impact on desired RNA ecological processes. All lease applications will have “no surface occupancy” stipulation.

• No mineral material permits will be issued.

Activities allowed in Botanical Areas (BA):

• Non-motorized dispersed recreation

• On-road motorized vehicles use is authorized in some areas; however other areas are
designated Roadless Areas

• Minimal timber harvest only when necessary to maintain, restore or enhance ecological values

• Livestock grazing if it does not conflict with the ecological values

• No new mineral material permits

— Source: Black Hills National Forest website

Article as featured in the Pick & Shovel Gazette October-November 2016 edition 

%d bloggers like this: