#kentucky amendment 1 (2024)

[thorne1435]

my state had an amendment up to vote that would ban the right to vote for "idiots and insane people"

i dont even know what to say about it. what fucking year is it?

[patriottruth]

Dumb donald Chump crossed all my lines, so I told his crimes to the FBI. 'Cause Kamala needed cold hard proof, so I gave her some. Now she's got the envelope, where you think she got it from?

To report donald j. trump and all of his potential allies to the FBI for the federal crimes of 2024 election fraud:

https://tips.fbi.gov/home Choice 1: Federal Election Crime

Choice 2: Voter/Ballot Fraud/Corrupt Election Official

For the "Subject" information, choose "This subject is a business" Business Name: Electors and governors attempting to elect insurrectionist Donald J. Trump in violation of Sec3/14A

When did the crime occur? 11/05/2024

Where did the crime occur? Specific location: AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WI, WY

How did you discover the election fraud? Donald J. Trump is an impeached, congressionally investigated, criminally indicted and prosecuted insurrectionist attempting to hold federal office in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

What false information was provided? The lies that a U.S. national popular vote, or a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, could clear Donald J. Trump's insurrectionist disqualification, instead of a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate.

Did the individual receive something in exchange for their illegal voting activity? Unknown

Did the subject vote multiple times or vote when ineligible to vote? Yes

Did an election official violate a voting law? Yes

Were ballots from the election destroyed? Unknown

Were vote tallies falsified? Unknown

Was there a voting machine/tabulation/software malfunction? Unknown

Please provide a brief description of the incident: On December 17th, 2024, state electors and governors from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming will be faced with the choices of engaging in fraud by an elections official or other individual, conspiracy against the United States, corruptly obstructing, influencing, and impeding an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights by giving aid and comfort to disqualified insurrectionist Donald J. Trump in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. State electors and governors attempting to vote for and create certificates of ascertainment to elect Donald J. Trump would be instantly disqualified from holding office per Sec3/14A, thereby rendering all their actions unlawful.

Are you reporting on behalf of yourself or someone else? Someone else

Victim Information: First Name: Kamala Middle Name: Devi Last Name: Harris Date of Birth: 10/20/1964 Phone Number: Business: (202) 456-1111 Email: vice.president@whitehouse.gov Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500

Complainant Information: Please uncheck any fields you would prefer not to answer. You don't have to enter your personal information here if you don't want to.

Reported To Law Enforcement: Have you reported this information to another law enforcement or government agency (local, state, or federal)? No

At this point, you can click "Show All" to review your tip. Once you're satisfied with it, just click "Submit Tip" and you're good to go.

[tomorrowusa]

Ohio voters handed anti-abortion Republicans a stinging defeat. Those voters approved Issue 1 which puts reproductive freedom into the Ohio Constitution. The just passed amendment also protects the right to contraception and fertility treatment.

Results are still coming in. But with 85% of the votes counted, about 55.5% of Ohioans voted to protect reproductive freedom. And most of the remaining uncounted votes come from large urban counties which approved Issue 1 with over 65% of the vote.

Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday that ensures access to abortion and other forms of reproductive health care, the latest victory for abortion rights supporters since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Ohio became the seventh state where voters decided to protect abortion access after the landmark ruling and was the only state to consider a statewide abortion rights question this year. The outcome of the intense, off-year election could be a bellwether for 2024, when Democrats hope the issue will energize their voters and help President Joe Biden keep the White House. Voters in Arizona, Missouri and elsewhere are expected to vote on similar protections next year. Ohio’s constitutional amendment, on the ballot as Issue 1, included some of the most protective language for abortion access of any statewide ballot initiative since the Supreme Court’s ruling. Opponents had argued that the amendment would threaten parental rights, allow unrestricted gender surgeries for minors and revive “partial birth” abortions, which are federally banned. Before the Ohio vote, statewide initiatives in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont had either affirmed abortion access or turned back attempts to undermine the right. Issue 1 specifically declared an individual’s right to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including birth control, fertility treatments, miscarriage and abortion.

It's a great victory for women and freedom in general. And it's a bad omen for GOP prospects in 2024.

Donald Trump carried Ohio both in 2016 and 2020. But the Republican insistence on controlling women's bodies will probably hurt the party there and elsewhere. And any attempt by the GOP to moderate its stand on abortion will result in major pushback by radical fundamentalist Christians who would like to return to the societal standards of the 17th century.

[darkmaga-returns]

Trump Becomes 47th President Of The US. Post-Election Truths. U.S. Military to launch a hypersonic nuclear missile. US warns Iraq. Netanyahu fires Gallant. What is HAARP?

Lioness of Judah Ministry

Nov 06, 2024

Donald Trump Projected To Become 47th President Of The US; Republicans Take Senate, Lead House

Harris has won California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine’s District 1, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska’s District 2, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Minnesota.

Trump has won Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, Pennsylvania. Wisconsin, and Maine District 2.

Coverage:

Donald Trump delivers victory speech after US election win

Post-Election Truths: The Things That Won’t Change (No Matter Who Wins)

“If voting could ever really change anything, it’d be illegal.”— Thorne, Land of the Blind (2006)

After months of handwringing and mud-slinging and fear-mongering, the votes have finally been cast and the outcome has been decided: the Deep State has won. Despite the billions spent to create the illusion of choice culminating in the reassurance ritual of voting for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, when it comes to most of the big issues that keep us in bondage to authoritarian overlords, not much will change. Despite all of the work that has been done to persuade us to buy into the fantasy that things will change if we just elect the “right” political savior, the day after a new president is sworn in, it will be business as usual for the unelected bureaucracy that actually runs the government.

77 Days Of Transition: New Law Aims To Streamline Presidential Power Transfer Process

Under this mandate, Trump and Harris may find themselves forming rival administrations for weeks...

The 2024 presidential election will see the first application of a 2022 amendment to the laws governing the transfer of power between administrations. There are 77 days between the Nov. 5 election and the Jan. 20, 2025, inauguration of the next president, during which time the president-elect will ready his or her administration to take over from President Joe Biden. The handoffs between an outgoing administration and a government-in-waiting have been largely drama-free for decades, and they have been governed by the rules enumerated in the Presidential Transition Act of 1963.

Michigan Man Arrested for Threat to Murder Christians If Trump Wins

Federal law enforcement has arrested a 25-year-old Michigan man for allegedly threatening to carry out a terrorist attack against Christians should President Donald J. Trump reclaim the White House.

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Isaac Sissel is being charged with sending threatening communications. “I shall carry out an attack against conservative Christian, [sic] filth in the event trump [sic] wins the election. I have a stolen [AR-15] and a target I refuse to name so I can continue to get away with my plans,” Sissel allegedly wrote, according to an anonymous online threatening submission filed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Threat Operations Center in West Virginia on November 2.

Antifa Returns On Election Night, Causing Chaos In Downtown Seattle

"Seattle PD had a heavy police response to Antifa's violent direct action on Election Day." 

The potential return of former President Trump to the White House appears to have sparked rage among far-left activists on Tuesday night. With Trump currently leading the electoral count at 214 votes to Harris's 179, reports are surfacing from Seattle that show Antifa activists have mobilized.  Ahead of the elections, National Guard troops were activated in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Guardsmen in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Washington, D.C., are on standby.

[treatnow]

How Hyperbaric Oxygenation is Restoring Brains damaged by AHI, Burn Pits, BLAST/TBI/PTSD/Concussion

"You cannot fix what you will not face."  James Baldwin A burst of energy, spurred by continuing scientific evidence, clinical results, and state legislative actions, have energized the BLAST/TBI/PTSD/Concussion/AHI communities. In January, 2024, Senators Warren, Tillis, and Ernst sent a letter to SECDEF seeking answers to a dozen questions related to the crisis of Blast injury. On April 11, 2024, 14 bipartisan Senators (8-D; 5-R; 1-I) introduced the "Blast Overpressure Safety Act." It is a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify roles and responsibilities within the Department of Defense relating to subconcussive and concussive brain injuries and to improve brain health initiatives of the Department of Defense, and for other purposes. Importantly, it establishes two comprehensive initiatives for brain health: the ‘Warfighter Brain Health Initiative’ and the SPECIAL OPERATIONS BRAIN HEALTH AND TRAUMA PROGRAM. The goal of each is unifying efforts and programs across the Department of Defense to improve the cognitive performance and brain health of members of the Armed Forces. **A senior member of the Senate is holding additional hearings to seek answers to a question with few answers from responsible parties in DoD: What more can be done to treat and help heal debilitating symptoms allegedly caused by Anomalous Health Incidents (AHI, aka Havana Syndrome). **In May, 24 members of Congress sent a letter to the Comptroller General of the GAO requesting "a Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of DoD efforts to identify, prevent, and treat traumatic brains injuries related to service members’ exposure to blast overpressure." The GAO's response in June said they will commence their research within four months. **Meanwhile, the TreatNOW Coalition continues to use Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) to treat symptoms of TBI/PTSD/Blast/AHI with continuing success. - Marines and other victims of BLAST related to widely-reported stories our of Syria and IRAQ continue to receive HBOT therapy, with life-altering success. - Burn Pit victims continue to be successfully treated with HBOT for the myriad of polytraumas resulting from combat in war zones infected by Burn Pit toxins. - AHI victims have begun receiving pro bono treatment with HBOT across the country. Three have completed treatment with enormous success. **Unfortunately, neither the DoD, the VA, State, nor the IC have seen their way clear to provide immediate treatment to the hundreds of thousands of brain-wounded victims of attacks, blasts, combat, training, or accidents. The NICoE continues with a standard of care that is far short of what badly treated brain wounded can receive outside their confines of drug and talk therapy mated to palliative care. Over 150 private HBOT clinics and 1,200 hospitals across the country administer HBOT medicine where the DoD and VA cannot and will not. Ironically, certain parts of the USG will allow donations and the patriotic pro bono efforts of private HBOT clinics to do the job that military medicine refuses to permit: healing brain wounds. **The states of Kentucky and Virginia have added additional funds to their initial legislation in the last two years calling for the use of HBOT for TBI/PTSD/Blast at the state level. Information on the Kentucky program can be found here. The HOW Foundation and the Extivita Clinic in Durham, NC can provide more information on Virginia and North Carolina programs. **Researchers at the University of South Florida in Tampa received $28M for a clinical trial to replicate data from 21 other clinical trials pointing to the safety and effectiveness of HBOT on individuals with symptoms after a traumatic brain injury (TBI) with or without symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). **And Dr. Alison Bested at NOVA Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale continues her second clinical trial demonstrating how HBOT used for TBI/PTSD helps heal and virtually eliminate suicidal ideation. Her results continue to show consistent and long-lasting efficacy. The validity of using HBOT for wound healing to the brain is validated in the most recent research. Unsurprisingly, delivering oxygen under pressure safely and economically leads to effective wound healing. And numerous other interventions for comorbid maladies have a much better chance of effectiveness when the concussion cascade is interrupted and reversed. ****************************** The TreatNOW Mission is ending service member suicides. Along the way, we have learned that we can end suicidal ideation, help end symptoms of PTSD, get patients off most of their drugs, and heal brain wounds to end the effects of BLAST injury, mild TBI Persistent Post Concussive Syndrome, and polytrauma from AHI and Burn Pits. www.treatnow.org Heal Brains. Stop Suicides. Restore Lives. TreatNOW Information provided by TreatNOW.org does not constitute a medical recommendation. It is intended for informational purposes only, and no claims, either real or implied, are being made. Read the full article

[kyprelaw]

The Ongoing Legal Battle of Disney and Ron DeSantis

By Andrew Bruner, University of Kentucky Class of 2024

July 10, 2023

Ron DeSantis is a name that many people may know, a leading figure to represent the Republican party in the 2024 Presidential Election. One may not have heard that DeSantis, the current governor of Florida, remains in an ongoing legal battle with the entire Disney corporation. The public warfare has tarnished the reputations of both Disney and DeSantis himself, the two sides continuing to remain at odds. The controversy began in 2022, with Florida legislation establishing the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, better known as the "Don't Say Gay" Bill. The bill banned public schools from discussing gender/sexual orientation in the classroom up through 3rd grade, legally forcing them to disclose any information a student shares to their parents [1].Disney, which has strong ties with the LGBTQ community through its mass media releases and park attendance, openly opposed the bill's passing. DeSantis responded by moving to resolve the Reedy Creek Improvement Act, which created the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Florida made the RCID specifically to allow Walt Disney to turn over 25,000 acres of swampland outside Orlando into a large capital of entertainment and tourism: Walt Disney World.

The RCID formation was integral in the establishment of Walt Disney World. The bill allowed Walt Disney World to operate under unique governance and taxing. The RCID benefitted both parties, simplifying construction or expansion for Disney. At the same time, the state ensured the creation and growth of one of the most prominent tourist attractions, bringing increased revenue to Florida and the city of Orlando. DeSantis' strike down of the district makes life much more complicated for Disney, giving him and other Florida leaders more control over their operations. Disney states in their lawsuit that repealing the RCID was as clear a case of retaliation as the Court will find. Disney also argues in their suit that DeSantis' actions violate the company's First Amendment and Due Process rights. In their eyes, an act that's operated smoothly for over 50 years came crashing down when they expressed an opinion that DeSantis and other Florida governmental leaders disliked. The lawsuit goes into much further detail regarding Disney's laundry list of complaints with Florida legislative leaders and the negative impacts their decisions have on the company.

The ongoing legal battle undoubtedly paints negative pictures for Disney and Desantis both. For Disney, the issue has brought widespread attention to the overarching power and authority the company has had throughout Florida since Walt Disney World's creation. For DeSantis, other Republican candidates running alongside him for the presidency in 2024 have massively criticized the situation and his actions. Donald Trump, the former president, referred to DeSantis' actions as a "political stunt." [3] Others criticize him for hurting both business and the right to free speech. Though Disney supported a left-wing view of the "Don't Say Gay" Bill, the company itself is a substantial economic boost one would expect the right-wing governor of Florida to support. Disney brings this lawsuit as both sides come to a standstill. Desantis' team filed to dismiss the case on June 26, 2023, claiming that he and other legislators of Florida have "Legislative Immunity." Their claim of legislative immunity refers to what's better known as Absolute Immunity. Typically, the president is known to hold Absolute Immunity, clearing them of being tried in a federal court for actions taken "for the good of the Country." Presidential immunity was brought to widespread attention as a prominent subject in the notable Supreme Court case Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982). However, this immunity also holds for legislative officials in civil courts, assuming lawmakers acted "within the scope of their powers." The question then becomes whether DeSantis and Florida lawmakers did work "within the scope of their powers," a far trickier subject for the district court of Florida to digest. Disney's argument relies on the belief that the act of "retaliation" to punish them for their 1st Amendment free speech would go beyond such powers. However, that is a decision for the Court to decide. The arguments for both Disney and DeSantis are compelling and controversial. This article only scratches the surface of disputes in an ongoing legal battle, unlikely to end anytime soon. How it plays out may substantially impact DeSantis' campaign for the 2024 presidency.______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/what-does-dont-say-gay-bill-mean-desantis-law-explained-1692694

[2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23789605-disney-v-desantis-complaint

[3] https://www.axios.com/2023/04/18/desantis-disney-trump-2024-republicans

[menlove]

I'm being so serious rn but if you live in Michigan, California, Vermont, Kentucky, or Montana you should be going out and voting on November 8th, 2022 if you are of age and able to

all of these states have abortion related bills on the ballot.

California:

Proposition 1. This is an ammendment to the State Constitution that would prohibit the state from interfering in reproductive rights, including abortion.

Michigan:

Proposition 3. Similar to California, this would ammend the Michigan Constitution to protect reproductive freedom, including abortion. There's also a 1931 ban on abortion that the block on is being repealed in court and this ammendment would stop that.

Vermont:

Article 22/Proposal 5. Similar to the above, this amends the Vermont Constitution to establish an individual right to reproductive autonomy.

Kentucky:

Constitutional Amendment 2. Unlike the others, this is one to vote no on. Abortion is already illegal in Kentucky, but this would make it far more difficult to ever make it legal again as it declares that nothing in the Kentucky Constitution would protect abortion/reproductive rights.

Montana:

LR-131. Now for Montana, abortion remains legal. However, this bill if passed would essentially deem a fetus/embryo a legal person and make it a criminal offense to not attempt to save it if it survives an abortion. Not exactly as dire as the other states, but still fucked up and a slippery slope to other such laws.

more info on the first 4

more info on the montana bill

"but but voting doesn't work and it's a tool of oppression and-" listen i really don't care if you vote for the president or not in 2024 and idc if you think local elections don't matter, things like this (local proposals) matter. this is a small thing you can do to protect reproductive rights for anyone that has the ability to get pregnant. please do so. the worst thing that happens is you vote and it doesn't matter but that's going to happen if you don't vote anyway so literally what is it hurting? best outcome is you save the lives/mental health of a shitton of people. it's not a hard choice.

[newjerseyprelawland-blog]

A Primer On Weight-Based Discrimination

By Arishita Gupta, Rutgers University Class of 2024

March 26, 2021

When talking about discrimination, some of the key ideas that come to mind are race, gender, orientation, ability, and religion. And while there is no comparison to be drawn between the validity of these struggles, one particular form remains undiscussed and unprotected in almost every state (as well as some cities) except Michigan [1]: weight-based discrimination. 

Weight-based discrimination is essentially what it sounds like: the partial treatment a person may experience because of their perceived size or weight, arising from incorrect stereotypes that people who are considered overweight are also less competent because of their appearance. It’s also a more common issue than it sounds like; a resource from Eastern Kentucky University showed that 93 percent of employers said that they would hire someone who appeared to have a “normal” weight over someone who appeared “obese” with the same credentials [2], while a study on 2,800 American employees revealed that 60% of them had experienced discrimination based on their weight in the workplace [3]. Overweight people are stereotyped to be lazy, undisciplined, sloppy, and unprofessional, amongst other negative attributes, possibly arising from the ideal beauty standard that permeates society in many respects.

This form of discrimination carries great implications in the future of affected employees as well. A study published in Economics and Human Biology Journal found that women deemed overweight were paid significantly less than their thinner counterparts, a wage disparity that can carry over a lifetime of work and wages [4]. Overall, workers who are considered overweight earn $1.25 less than their normally-weighted counterparts, resulting in a total of $100,000 wages lost over a 40 year career [5]. The staggering number is even more serious considering that clinically obese people spend about 42% more on necessary health-related costs, which totals to approximately $1,000 more per year for obese men and $3,600 per year for obese women [3]. These issues about healthcare also reflect in workplace health insurances, where roughly out of a population of half of those who were considered overweight, 26% reported being denied health insurance due to their weight [3].

Weight-based discrimination is one that remains largely unprotected by major anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA), The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [6]. Title VII of the CRA prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of a variety of characteristics, such as race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality, but not weight. The Rehabilitation Act and ADA both protect individuals with disabilities in the workplace, but do not protect overweight and clinically obese individuals in most cases. The only times the ADA has successfully been invoked in court while pursuing damages for weight-based discrimination is either when the employee has another health problem (such as diabetes, which is protected by the act), that has caused a person to be or appear obese, or if the measured level of obesity is twice the norm [7]. But these bars can be difficult to prove, and create another barrier for individuals seeking action by having them prove they have another health problem or that their health problem is extremely abnormal. They also leave individuals in the middle, who may not meet either requirement, but still face unwarranted discrimination, unprotected.

To address this issue would mean taking action at multiple levels: federal, state, local, and non-governmental. Amending the CRA to include weight as a protected class would be a potential step to take at the federal level, which would encourage state and local governments to follow suit (as most state anti-discrimination laws follow federal laws through federalism or expand on them further). But the stereotype that overweight people are underqualified for jobs solely because of their weight is not one that can change with these laws: it is a cultural issue. Employers and coworkers alike need to understand that weight is not a determinant of the quality of work an employee can produce, nor is it a reason to be paid less. In cases of weight-discrimination, bullying on the basis of apperance can prove to make workplaces hostile and unsafe. For example, an employee named Corey Dickson, who filed and lost a weight-based discrimination suit in the state of New Jersey, reported that his coworkers repeatedly teased him by calling him “as big as a bus” [8]. Such comments can ruin a working environment and cause more stress, especially for something that is not necessarily in the worker’s control, but also require a shift in workplace mentality, not just the law.

______________________________________________________________

Arishita Gupta is a first-year student at Rutgers Business School- New Brunswick, double majoring in Communications and Supply Chain Management. She plans on attending law school after her graduation in 2024

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://time.com/4883176/weight-discrimination-workplace-laws/

[2] https://safetymanagement.eku.edu/blog/overweight-and-underpaid-weight-discrimination-at-work/

[3]  https://pasternaklaw.com/obesity-and-employment-discrimination/

[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X17301089?via%3Dihub

[5] http://cswd.org/statistics-2

[6] https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/no-fear-act/protections-against-discrimination

[7] https://www.employmentlawfirms.com/discrimination-at-work/overweight-obese-employee-discrimination.htm

[8] https://onlabor.org/weight-based-discrimination-the-state-of-the-law-and-why-it-should-be-rethought/

[goldeagleprice]

Myddelton failure turns valuable

Among top-selling lots at Dix Noonan Webb’s September auction was a delightful example of a 1796 Kentucky halfpenny token struck in silver for Philip Parry Price Myddelton. Its arrival on the block produced fierce competition that saw it sell for double the upper estimate. In U.S. dollars the price achieved was $24,314.

These halfpennies are remarkably attractive items. The Guide Book of United States Coins observes, “They are unsurpassed in beauty and design by any piece of the period.” That appeal is accompanied by an intriguing history. Of the numerous accounts that exist two are based on extensive, personal archival research, those of Don Taxay and Richard Margolis. Both are freely cited here.

The rare and sought-after 1796 Kentucky halfpenny of Philip Myddelton in silver (Breen-1073, W-8905, R.6) which fetched $24,314, well over double estimate at DNW’s September sale. The overall design has been construed as an allusion to Britain’s loss of its American colonies, or even to her defeat at Yorktown. Margolis rejects such interpretations. He sees the portrayal as more general: Hope presents new citizens to America’s Liberty who brings peace and plenty; in contrast Britannia symbolizes a hide-bound and depressed Britain devoid of justice and liberty. (Image courtesy Dix, Noonan & Webb)

Dr. Philip Parry Price is described as, “a thin man, about 5 feet 10 inches high, with high cheek bones, of rather genteel appearance, has a little of the Yankee dialect”. In the 1790s he is known to have been practicing medicine in Philadelphia. The death of a relative in 1794 saw him visit England to sort out family affairs. About this time he added “Myddelton” to his name.

He claimed to have purchased large tracts of land in northern Kentucky bordering the Ohio River. In the winter of 1795-1796 he advertised in provincial English newspapers for those prepared to settle his Kentucky lands. Several hundred farmers, artisans and laborers are believed to have responded.

Clearly Myddelton had a substantial settlement in mind. He contacted Matthew Boulton at the Soho Mint with a view to having tokens produced for the convenience of the new settlers. Seven, possibly eight letters were exchanged from December 1795 to April 1796.

These discussed production of halfpenny copper tokens for which Myddelton proposed a design consisting of, “on one side, the figure of Britannia weeping over the emblems of Liberty and justice, surrounded by ‘British Settlement Kentucky 1796’[;] on the reverse, a Centre figure, representing Liberty stretching forth her hands to a smaller figure on each side emblematical of peace and plenty encircled by ‘payable by p.p.p. Myddelton, proprietor’.”

In early January 1796 he amended this proposal to show, “Britannia with her head pendant, her spear reversed and leaning on her shield, before her the demons of Discord and tyranny treading under foot [sic] the Emblems of Liberty and justice. Legend ‘Payable by P.P.P. Myddelton’ on the reverse. The figure of Liberty holding out her hand to welcome two little genii presented to her by Hope, at the feet of the figure of Liberty the Emblems of peace and Plenty. Legend ‘British Settlement Kentucky 1796’.” In effect he asked for his two designs to be modified and switched between obverse and reverse but not the legends.

As the proposed date of his return to America was March 1 he requested his order be dealt with promptly. Boulton had reservations about there being sufficient time to execute the order given the number of human figures to be engraved as well as other changes Myddelton had requested. He wrote on February 12 pointing out his concerns. In this letter he specifically refers to the token as being “a half peny” [sic].

The same day Boulton sent his reply Myddelton was named in a writ issued by the Chief Justice, Lloyd Lord Kenyon in the name of George III. Myddelton failed to mention this development to Boulton but agreed to suggestions to simplify the design in order to expedite matters. On Feb. 24 one die had been completed sufficiently for Boulton to send a lead impression to Myddelton.

The dies are likely to have been the work of Conrad Küchler who Soho had employed as the Mint’s principal engraver in 1795. He had proved he could work very quickly when the occasion demanded. He demonstrated this with the Myddelton order by completing both dies in time for 53 specimens of the new tokens to be struck in silver on March 8. Each weighed approximately 175 grains.

The Soho Mint’s Ledger shows Myddelton was charged £5.4s.0d for 50 of these tokens or about 2s.1d each. Subsequently 46 were returned to Soho and £4.15s.8d credited to Myddelton’s account leaving an outstanding balance of 8s.4d for the four retained.

Choice Rarity: 1796 Myddelton token in copper ex-Roper collection, ex-Eric P. Newman Numismatic Education Society (Breen-1074, W-8900, R.7). The Soho Mint website, http://sohomint.info, observes, “Küchler really had fun with this one, and his engraving represents an exuberant example of 18th century kitsch.” (Image www.ha.com)

At about this time Myddelton’s grand colonization plans had come grievously unstuck. The writ issued by the Chief Justice concerned Myddelton’s efforts to recruit settlers for his Kentucky colony. This was in breach of a statute enacted in 1783 prohibiting the hiring of talented workmen for employment outside of England. To do so was regarded as a serious offence particularly where the renegade colonies of former British North America were concerned

The indictment explicitly charged that he, “did contract with one John Miles” … “the said John Miles then and there being a manufacturer workman and artificer of Great Britain in the Manufacture of weaving Cloth” … “to go out of this Kingdom of Great Britain into a certain foreign country called America such foreign Country not then being within the Dominions of or belonging to the Crown of Great Britain”… “In Contempt of our Lord the King and his Laws.”

Initially Myddelton had been released on bail but on April 6 he was locked away in Newgate Prison to await trial.

When his case came to court he had a top defense counsel. Even so the jury found him guilty. His sentence handed down on June 9 consisted of a £500 fine and he was to be held in jail for 12 months or until the money was paid. In the event, he remained in jail for more than three years with the fine being paid in November 1799.

Of 53 silver specimens struck in March 1796 the Soho Mint held 49 once Myddelton had returned 46 of the 50 sent to him. It seems likely these remarkably beautiful pieces had been intended for presentation and/or promotional purposes.

Once Myddelton had been charged, let alone found guilty, these items would have become political hot potatoes. They were associated with a convicted felon. And, as Margolis points out, the depiction of a dejected Britannia would have done nothing to help Myddelton’s cause. The Mint appears to have put these to one side before gradually and discreetly selling them to collectors and other individuals. Margolis provides a detailed list of the recipients that included Sir Joseph Banks.

Soho certainly appears to have become very sensitive of their association with Myddelton and his plans. It had become the custom of the Mint to prepare bronzed specimen sets of the different coins and tokens produced each year. Margolis is unaware of any specimen of the Myddelton token being included in these sets despite the sheer quality of its design. Nor is it mentioned in a promotional brochure of 1832 sent by the Mint to attract business from overseas governments. Nor were any specimens present in the 1850 sale of the Soho Mint’s contents.

Margolis found the archival records lack evidence that Myddelton was ever charged for a single copper token although he had clearly intended to have a considerable number struck. Nonetheless 11 proof-quality copper examples were produced by the Mint who sold them in 1796 and 1797 to collectors for sixpence apiece.

In all respects they are identical to the silver pieces – other than for their metal content. They weigh between 159 and 173 grains. Analysis by Numismatic Guaranty Corporation cited by Heritage Auctions showed one to contain 99 percent copper.

Extremely Rare Myddelton/Copper Company of Upper Canada mule (Breen-1076). The 1796 obverse legend referring to a British Settlement is, of course, at odds with Kentucky being admitted to the Union on June 1, 1792. (Image www.ha.com)

Also of interest to today’s collectors are the copper mules of the 1796 Myddelton token obverse and the 1794 letterpress reverse of the Copper Company of Upper Canada halfpenny, the work of Küchler’s predecessor Noel-Alexandre Ponthon.

Margolis presents an extended discussion of these pieces including a review of all previous literature. He points out there is no evidence to support any of the various published interpretations as to the origin of these mules. But after close examination of several he offers his opinion that they were created by Boulton in 1796 to illustrate to Myddelton the advantages of combining an elaborate obverse design with a very simple reverse. They were never “concocted rarities” for sale to collectors but “practical examples of Boulton’s feelings about halfpenny design.” Intriguingly one of these surfaced in the 1850 sale.

If any reader now feels they must have an example of a Myddelton token for their collection, then Heritage Auctions will have one of the silver pieces listed for the firm’s Jan. 3-8, 2018, FUN U.S. Coins Signature Auction in Tampa.

References

Margolis, R. Matthew Boulton, Philip Parry Price Myddelton, and the proposed token coinage for Kentucky. The Colonial Newsletter 1999, 39(3), pp. 1991-2024.

Taxay, D. The Myddelton Token. Coinage, June 1970, pp. 60-62, 84.

  This article was originally printed in World Coin News. >> Subscribe today.

  More Collecting Resources

• More than 600 issuing locations are represented in the Standard Catalog of World Coins, 1701-1800 .

• Are you a U.S. coin collector? Check out the 2018 U.S. Coin Digest for the most recent coin prices.

The post Myddelton failure turns valuable appeared first on Numismatic News.

[stogutrosenberry]

Latest GOPcare bill brings back hated pre-ACA conditions while still slashing Medicaid

Remember in the bad old days before the Affordable Care Act, when those who bought individual plans on the private market faced unpleasant surprises – like finding at out very inopportune times that their plans didn’t cover hospitalization or maternity care, or that they’d reached a lifetime limit and their insurer wouldn’t pay for any more care at all? When dysfunctional insurance markets meant individual coverage was effectively impossible to purchase for all but the healthiest or wealthiest? If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has his way, we’ll be going back to those hated conditions, but with the added burden of deep Medicaid cuts and other provisions that are awful for public health.

As you might recall, last month McConnell presented the “Better Care Reconciliation Act,” which contained several deeply problematic provisions, including fundamental changes to the Medicaid program that would cut it by more than one-third by 2036. All Democrats and several Republicans in the Senate opposed the bill, so McConnell canceled a scheduled vote and started cutting deals. The updated BCRA debuted on July 13th and, in keeping with his unprecedented speed and secrecy on this legislation, McConnell wants a vote on it by the end of the month.

The Cruz amendment and the individual market

From the side of the party that thought the bill didn’t go far enough in undoing the ACA, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed an amendment that would allow insurers to sell non-ACA compliant plans as long as they also sold at least one compliant plan in the same market. (Compliant plans would still have to cover the essential health benefits each state requires and couldn’t charge higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions, among other rules.) This would lead to each market having one set of relatively affordable plans for people with few healthcare needs (which might hold unpleasant surprises for those who get injured or develop new health conditions), and a set of increasingly unaffordable plans for those with chronic conditions, pregnancies, or advanced age – in other words, the problematic conditions the ACA was designed to address.

The Senate bill would also modify the ACA’s premium subsidies. Instead of using 400% of the federal poverty level as a cutoff, the new bill sets the income limit for subsidies to 350% FPL, which is about $42,000 for a single person and $85,000 for a family of four. Importantly, the subsidies would also be pegged to lower-value plans. Under the ACA, subsidies are designed to let people afford a silver plan, which covers an average of 70% of enrollees’ healthcare costs. The BCRA would peg subsidies to plans that cover only 58% of costs, so low-income enrollees might be able to afford premiums but would face substantially higher deductibles and other forms of cost-sharing.

Within a few years of this system taking effect, we’d see a few things in the individual market. Young, healthy people who remained healthy and avoided pregnancy would be paying lower premiums. Those in the low-premium plans who were injured or developed expensive health conditions might find out that their plans don’t cover the services they now need, and some of them would then look for an ACA-compliant plans. Premiums for compliant plans would “skyrocket” (in the words of leading insurers) as the healthier people opted for non-compliant plans. People with incomes under 350% FPL could get federal assistance for premiums – but then when they actually needed care they would probably struggle to pay deductibles of $6,000 (i.e., one-fifth of the annual income of someone earning $30,000). Fewer people would be getting subsidized insurance, and it would be worse insurance. But, because the subsidized ACA-compliant plans would be attracting the consumers with the greatest health needs, their premiums would be rising – and likely result in higher costs to the federal government.

Band-aids for gaping wounds

The revised BCRA keeps some of the taxes the earlier version cut, though it still eliminates $657 billion in taxes. The additional revenue from the rescinded cuts allows for a $45 billion pot to address opioid use disorder and a $182 billion pot (larger than in the previous version) for “state stability and innovation programs” that could include premium support. However, new money for opioid use disorder treatment will be of limited use if millions of people are losing their Medicaid coverage at the same time, and $186 billion won’t go all that far in insurance markets facing death spirals. And, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Aviva Aron-Dine points out, most of the stabilization money is slated to go directly to insurers (who will probably find it inadequate), so states will only get about $50 billion between them as they face millions more people without insurance and sharply dropping federal Medicaid contributions.

Many of the Senators who opposed the BCRA in its first incarnation cited concerns about Medicaid funding. These concerns are entirely appropriate given that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal contributions to this federal-state program will be 35% lower by 2036 than they would be under current law. These massive cuts remain in the bill, as does the one-year elimination of payments to Planned Parenthood providers, who provide care — including cancer screenings and STI testing, as well as contraception — to a large share of the Medicaid population.

One gesture that the July 13th BCRA makes towards states worried about starkly inadequate federal Medicaid contributions is to allow Medicaid program expenditures in response to public health emergencies to be exempt from the spending caps. But, as Sara Rosenbaum (disclosure: a colleague at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health) explains at the Health Affairs Blog, this exemption is only an illusion:

First, the period of exemption lasts only five years, from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2024. Emergencies happening after this date won’t qualify for the spending adjustment. Second, the bill provides no additional federal spending during the period of a declared emergency. The draft simply allows states to eventually qualify for additional federal funding in the years following the emergency if they can prove to the Secretary that their spending on the affected population went up compared to prior years and then only for immediate emergency costs. What state will have the money in advance? And what state will be able to take a chance on spending more given the purely speculative nature of whether an emergency will be declared and emergency expenditures recognized?

Third, states would receive no additional funding ever unless the HHS Secretary actually declares an emergency in the affected portion of the state or for the state’s affected populations. Many public health threats may not rise to a level that triggers a formal Secretarial determination, and the Secretary may be inclined not to make such a determination because of other, spillover effects that come with such a determination, such as the elevated demand for other types of resources.

Fourth, the additional amount of federal funding made available would be limited to the difference between what the state spent on the population in connection with the emergency and the state’s previous expenditures for the same population. Expenditures to cope with the emergency aftermath would not count, and of course these expenditures likely would not occur simultaneously with the emergency expenditures. For example, Zika has triggered emergency expenditures aimed at preventing the spread of the virus, but the true costs of Zika will roll out slowly in the form of babies left permanently and severely disabled by the virus.

The bill’s elimination of the Prevention and Public Health Fund is another blow to our health system’s ability to respond to infectious disease outbreaks and other public health emergencies.

With Senators Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) seeming fairly firm in opposing the BCRA, McConnell can afford to lose only one more vote. Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia), Dean Heller (R-Nevada), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) have expressed the most substantial concerns about the bill’s massive Medicaid cuts, and the new BCRA contains provisions that speak – however weakly – to their concerns. A formula for apportioning funds to states would benefit only Alaska; the opioid money would presumably be welcome in Ohio and West Virginia, where the opioid epidemic has been particularly devastating; and Heller had a “very, very good” conversation with McConnell after the revised bill’s release.

Any provisions that McConnell offers these Senators while maintaining the devastating changes to the Medicaid program will amount to fig leaves that give these Senators an excuse to put politics ahead of public health.

  Article source:Science Blogs

[thorne1435]

also hey wait doesn't idiot mean like. nonverbal???

are they trying to stop mutes from voting now??????

my state had an amendment up to vote that would ban the right to vote for "idiots and insane people"

i dont even know what to say about it. what fucking year is it?

[tomorrowusa]

Democrats have an overlooked bright spot from the election.

Many states elect their supreme court justices. At least in that area, Democrats had a decent election.

Across the country, voters also elected liberal justices to their state Supreme Courts, which function as a key backstop for civil rights and democracy as federal courts lurch rightward. Progressives didn’t win a clean sweep, but they emerged with an impressive scorecard, carrying seats in battlegrounds like Michigan and safely red states like Kentucky and Montana. Left-leaning judicial candidates even prevailed in deep-red Arkansas and Mississippi, bucking the national shift rightward. And a progressive jurist is now leading the tally heading into a recount in an extraordinarily close race for the North Carolina Supreme Court, with a victory there promising to end the left’s painful losing streak on that bench and serve as a capstone for the one piece of the 2024 election where progressives actually flourished.

Democrats in general did well in state races in North Carolina. Perhaps that deserves a post of its own. But back to the courts.

This shifting dynamic is perhaps most evident in North Carolina, a swing state that Trump carried by about 3 points. Despite Trump’s triumph at the top of the ticket, Democrats prevailed in other statewide races, including governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. And the party had another key objective this cycle: Breaking the cycle of losses on the North Carolina Supreme Court. Just four years ago, liberals held a 6–1 majority on this court. In 2020 and 2022, however, Republicans narrowly flipped four seats, establishing a 5–2 conservative majority. This year, Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat, sought to stop the bleeding by holding down her seat against a Republican challenger, Jefferson Griffin. Her victory would create a path for progressives to flip back the court in 2028. On election night, it looked like Riggs might narrowly lose. But as counties tallied provisional ballots, she took the lead and now holds an edge of about 625 votes over Griffin. There will be a recount, but right now, the odds are in Riggs’ favor.

Perhaps you recall how Wisconsin Dems flipped the Wisconsin Supreme Court last year. That caused a gerrymandered state map to get thrown out and ended the GOP supermajority in the state legislature.

A similar strategy in another battleground, Michigan, helped progressives grow their majority on the state Supreme Court this year even as Trump carried the state. Liberals currently hold a 4–3 majority on the bench, and Republicans had a chance to flip it in November. One liberal incumbent, Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, faced a Republican challenger, Patrick O’Grady. And the race for an open seat pitted the progressive Kimberly Anne Thomas against Republican state Rep. Andrew Fink. On Election Day, Bolden and Thomas each won by more than 20 points, with backing from outside groups, including Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. In advertisements, these groups told voters that Bolden and Thomas could be trusted to enforce Michigan’s new constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights—while O’Grady and Fink would “take abortion rights away.” Bolden and Thomas’ blowout victories indicate that the message resonated with Michiganders who care about reproductive freedom.

Read the linked article for more good news.

People tend not to regard state government as being sexy. But it's the states which are best suited to protect our rights during a Trump presidency.

Getting involved in campaigns for state legislative and judicial offices is an excellent way to wet your feet in politics as well as protect democracy.