The Tea Party

We gonna lynch that koon nigger!!!

Yesiree, string that old slave up.

The Boston Tea Party

It was the first act of monkeywrenching in the American colonies.  The tax industry had a monopoly and the tax was intolerable.  Boy, the really pissed old king georgie porgie III.  BTW, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson Grew hemp (pot)

Some Tea Pariers support pot legalization - CA

A Different Kind of Tea: Some Tea Partiers May Support Pot Legalization

by Leo E. Laurence, J.D. Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM
leopowerhere@msn.com (619) 757-4909

Proposition 19, which would legalize and tax marijuana in California, may have some unexpected supporters in the conservative tea party movement, reports Leo E. Laurence, associate editor of Zenger’s magazine and a former deputy sheriff who's campaigning for the measure as a member of the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.).

A Different Kind of Tea

Some Libertarian “Tea Party“ Conservatives May Back Prop. 19

by LEO E. LAURENCE, J.D.

Copyright © 2010 by Leo E. Laurence • All rights reserved

Support for Proposition 19 on the November ballot to regulate, tax and control cannabis (marijuana) is coming from unexpected sources, including activists in the Tea Party.

Recent polls show support for the statewide initiative is growing, and it may pass with a bigger majority than expected.

The glossy, locally published NUG Magazine ran as its lead article in its October issue a story I wrote supporting Proposition 19 on behalf of the international organization, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. NUG is distributed within the cannabis community (and therefore widely read by young people). I’m a former deputy sheriff and once served in the San Diego D.A.’s office.

My article suggested that “the impact of the conservative Tea Party movement is unknown, and could threaten passage. Some [San Diego] City Councilmembers (Todd Gloria, Carl DeMaio) even refused to discuss it, ignoring the hundreds of millions of dollars that could come into our city treasury if Proposition 19 passes.”

“[The] impact of the fiery, neo-conservative Tea Party movement is unknown,” I wrote in NUG.

After that magazine hit the streets, I received a phone call from conservative El Cajon.

“Proposition 19 is not a partisan issue, especially in East County,” said Justin Price, 26, after reading my NUG article.

Price is a Tea Party supporter.

“Conservative support for Proposition 19 might be stronger than you think,” he added.

“There are lots of Republicans and Tea Party activists who are smoking a joint in their home while watching TV,” he believes.

Price works in a convenience store and reported that many of his customers, including conservative seniors, are talking about it and intend to vote for it.

Change in Law

Under current state law, the possession, cultivation or distribution of marijuana is illegal. In 1996, medical marijuana was approved by voters, but recent San Diego City Council restrictions on the location of medical marijuana dispensaries threatened to create a nearly de facto ban on it.

While possession of it heretofore was misdemeanor, the governor recently signed a state law that reduces it to an infraction, similar to a traffic ticket. Unlicensed sales remain a felony.

Under Proposition 19, everyone over 21 will be able to lawfully possess, share and transport up to an ounce of marijuana. Use will be restricted to a residence or any non-public place.

Cultivation of marijuana will be permitted in an area up to 25 square feet per residence or parcel, and possession of any items of equipment associated with those lawful activities will be permitted.

State and local law enforcement agencies will not be able to seize or destroy marijuana from persons in compliance with the state law.

Employers under Proposition 19 will retain exiting rights to address the consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee’s job performance.

Smoking in the presence of minors — anyone under 21 — will be unlawful, as will driving under the influence and possession on the grounds of an elementary, middle or high school.

Existing laws prohibiting penalties for furnishing marijuana to minors under 18 will remain.

Big money for local governments

Up to two billion dollars will flood into the treasuries of local and state governments with passage of Proposition 19. That figure is an estimate by the state’s taxing agency, the Board of Equalization.

That could make a big dent in the huge budget deficit that the City of San Diego is experiencing.

Another state agency, the independent, non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), says, “To the extent that a commercial marijuana industry develops in the state, we estimate that the state and local governments could eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenue.”

So why are local politicians (e.g., City Councilmembers DeMaio and Gloria) refusing to even discuss it with the media?

The initiative is carefully worded to insure that most of its money goes to local government, not the state in Sacramento.

Inaccurate Opposition

In a published statement that ran in our local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, our district attorney Bonnie Dumanis provided grossly inaccurate facts. Why? Here are some “facts” she wrote:

1. “The truth is, Proposition 19 does not regulate, does not control and does not tax marijuana as its name implies.” FALSE! Apparently she did not read the official state LAO report.

2. “It means zero revenue for the state of California.” FALSE!

3. “The proposition would prohibit an employer from firing an employee who is under the influ-ence.” FALSE!

When I was a deputy sheriff, I would sometimes question a suspect by asking questions, the answers to which I already knew. If they lied on some significant facts, I would question the credibility of all their facts. The same applies to the D.A.’s, inaccurate statements opposing Proposition 19. Why does the opposition have to lie?

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Because the prohibitions against marijuana have been based on lies ever since the first commissioner of the federal government’s Bureau of Narcotics, Harry J. Anslinger, lobbied Congress to enact them in the 1930’s.]

The Basics

Unlike cigarettes or alcohol, marijuana is not physically addictive. Its use does not lead to heavier drugs.

Legalization will lead to reduced consumption, according to studies made in countries (like the Netherlands) that already made that change.

Marijuana does not make consumers violent, as does alcohol.

Consuming cannabis does not have long-term toxic effects on the body, as does smoking tobacco.

Passing Proposition 19 will hit the Mexican drug cartels hard. An estimated 64 percent of the cartel’s revenues come from marijuana. Its cultivation soared by 36 percent, and is higher than at any time in nearly two decades, according to the U.S. State Department. That’s why former Mexican president Vicente Fox has called on his own government to legalize marijuana.

The U.S. has about 5 percent of the world’s population, yet it has 26 percent of its prisoners; some in prison for possession of a single joint and typically people of color.

More information is available at http://www.taxcannabis.org

Contact writer Leo E. Laurence, J.D. at (619) 757-4909 or leopowerhere@msn.com

zengersmag.blogspot.com

the Tea Party

Showing You This, While Taking From You That

author: Sudhama Ranganathan        e-mail: uconnharassment@gmail.com

This year is supposed to be different from others. This election year the people are supposed to have risen up and demanded something new from their government. This election year the people are supposed to have said they will take no more, and are supposed to have selected candidates who represent a closer approximation of themselves. This year the tenor is supposed to have been set by the grass roots.

For some reason, though, the people behind the uprising seem to be familiar ones. For some reason, the people doing the interviews, coming up with the talking points for candidates and explaining the new movement and the voter frustration are people we've known for quite some time. We've seen them for years, many from as far back as the Reagan years. If this was so new, how can this be exactly? It seems certain people have gone around the country latching onto a movement which grew out of genuine anger and frustration to put forward their own political agenda and rescue a hobbled big tent party. In some ways it bodes well as, whether you agree with the tenets of the movement or not, it is an example of the political elite scrambling to catch up with a desire on the part of voters to see something new from Washington. It is a desire which has manifested as something other than the typical easy to subdue, docile and apathetic voter sentiment. This time the desire for change which first reared its head on the left and independent center has also shown up on the right, and those who were hoping for something to come their way, for a few hopeful drops of rain to land in the desert they found themselves in, got more than they could have hoped for. Soon the spin followed. It was the fault of this one and that one, and as the people at the top of the heap, at the moment were from the left, they had an easy target to point to and say, "see them? It's their faults!" But, so far the direction the movement is taking does not bode well for real political change. This is a democracy represented by more than one side, and in Washington little gets accomplished through bitter partisan divides. An unwillingness to move means either one side is forced to do everything themselves with no input from the other side with things still moving as slow as molasses, or nothing gets done at all. For a year, an unwillingness to move is really all we've seen, and standing firm past the point of stubbornness has not been conducive to productive non-partisan legislation. To blame where we are on the current administration alone is like blaming an out of control blaze on the firemen who showed up after it was already an emergency for the 5 alarm fire. There were people who were there from both sides previously who contributed to the mess, but the current administration has had less than two years to fix a problem which started nine to ten years before they ever took office. That's not to excuse their mistakes because there are no excuses for them, but a miracle in less than a year could not have been accomplished by anyone, no matter what lines they're selling up in Washington these days. The people behind the new faces of this supposedly new movement for change are not new, fresh faces at all. They are not Jane and Joe from the neighborhood who rose up out of frustration and went door to door until a movement was sparked. Unfortunately they are political operatives who have been in the game years. In fact groups like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, which were once the same group, are training, strategizing for, marketing, organizing for, funding and developing talking points for the Tea Party. Both groups are listed on the Tea Party web site and have been strong forces behind the movement since its inception. In the media most of the "experts" interviewed about the movement are not your average Jane or Joe at all, but are usually longtime Republican Party members of one stripe or another. Everywhere you turn, on every major channel when the news program host turns to someone to say, "tell us more about this," "explain to us this movement" or "tell us about the Tea Party" it isn't some fresh new face most of the time. In fact most of those faces are the same faces who were giving us the Republican perspective in the 2008 elections and for the most part the 2006 elections. And those fresh faces? The same operatives who have ranted about a lack of transparency in Washington have told them not to talk to the media. So how are we supposed to know who they are besides the occasional talking point rhetoric? The two wealthy brothers behind the movement, Charles and David Koch, are true conservatives in name only, who fund the Tea Party and have pushed talking points about wasteful government spending, out of control government expansion and pork barrel projects, have raked in $100 million dollars from lucrative government contracts since 2000. They have been fined for dumping toxic waste onto community lands and into water supplies. They have been fined for stealing oil from taxpayer owned land. These are not salt of the earth wholesome all-American types. These are men who have the money, power and resources to peddle one thing, so that they can take another. There was a saying in the seventies which went, "the revolution will not be televised." To all those who believe this to be a revolution, take a close look at what's really going on. There will be time to see whether we will have real change or not soon enough, and whether it is the type of change the average American really feels is benefitting them or not. As long as it's the same old rich guys who keep getting richer, even during the recession, calling the shots, what are the chances we will see any truly lasting meaningful change for ourselves? What would it benefit men who have built their lives on accumulating wealth to suddenly start doing those things which benefit us instead? They don't need any more money, they want more power, and only we, the voters, can give it to them, and we will bow, and we will surrender it to them this year. To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.

homepage: http://www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com

Boston Tea Party

"We wanna lynch that koon"