27 votes

Mendocino RCC Congressional Nomination Meeting March 5TH

Dan Roberts has been selected by Mendocino RCC for the office of Congress, 2ND District, CA.

There were ten people at th Special Election RCC meeting, not including the candidate, Dan Roberts/ Mill Valley.

Dan sounded allot like Ron Paul. When it came time for questions and answers, I asked Dan, who owns an investment company, his thoughts about the Federal Reserve Bank. He lit up and the first words out of his mouth was, "I had a 44 minute meeting with RON PAUL, and let me tell you, Ron was very generous with his time, and very polite." Then he went on, praising Ron Paul for writing legislature to audit the Fed, and went on about how we need to End The Fed.

Of course he had my vote.

So after Dan was excused, and we had our discussion, the woman sitting on my left tells me that she read, "The Creature From Jekyll Island", and she likes Ron Paul allot. I gave her a Super Brochure. Then another woman, who was very popular, and sitting a person away from me, leans to me and asks, "You like Ron Paul?" And I said, "Yes, I do." And she says, "So do I. My sons introduced me to him, and he has converted me. He's the only one who makes sense." I gave her a Super Brochure. (I was not supposed to be campaigning, so I slid them Super Brochures).

The executive committee came back endorcing Dan Roberts, and I am so happy, because now, not only do I have a presidential candidate, but a congressional candidate!

I was feeling so triumphant leaving the meeting, which was at a very good Chinese restaurant, The Yum Yum Tree, that some hippies coming into the place addressed me, "Man what are you high on?" I said, "Ron Paul!" One walks over to me and points at Ron Paul's face in the passanger back seat, and he says, "You carry Ron Paul around with you?" So I said, "I sure do brother." And i cracked open my trunk, and passed out Super Brochures saying, "This is your ticket to freedom my friends. This is what the establishment doesn't want you to know. I'm a Republican because Ron Paul is making people as high as Jerry Garcia." They took the Super Brochures and said, "Let us know when this next meeting is, we want to be there for this." I said, you can meet me here in three months for your dose."

I drove home with my smile brighter than the high beams on my headlights.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'll be back in Sonoma County in 4 weeks

I love Mendocino as well (want to get a massive property out there with some friends).

Let's try to meet up and win Nor Cal for the good doctor!

Jack Wagner

pretty area

It's very pretty country. Too bad no one ever took my somewhat tongue in cheek advice to build "the wall" at the Marin border.

I've done alot of campaign work over there, not for some years now though. Did the Sonoma County Property Owners Bill of Rights...that one lost, but it was a good fight.

They've had this tussle of becoming less like the farmers and more like the urban planners.

Some of the planners escaped from Marin to take bigger jobs planning in Sonoma.

I fear that by now they've crept northward and are on the loose in Mendocino.

What a shame :(

Spoken like a genuine

Spoken like a genuine revolutionary

I made ballot access

I will be on the June 5th ballot in Mendocino County for Republican Central Committee. Vote for me, I'm a Ron Paul Republican changing the GOP from the inside.

Granger, except for the word

Granger, except for the word allot which was misused, I think this is your best post ever. Need to stamp those brochures with "STEAL THIS BROCHURE". Lol

Thanks Allot Crickett

It's my first time to be on a ballot, so I don't know... What should I say?

RE: Super Brochures, I have found if I pass them out selectively they get read. Telling people it's a ticket to freedom seems to perk their interests.

I like this post a lot

I don't like it allot.

;-)

My county central committee is not nearly as awake... yet. We're bringing in some new blood though.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

Awesome that is great news

Keep up the good work people like you are the backbone of this movement.

wonderful!

wonderful!

reedr3v's picture

Granger, what a wonderful, upbeat story;

you are an effective campaigner -- excellent post and work!

Thank you reedr3v

means allot to me coming from YOU!

The hippies always want to Rage Against the Machine

and you need to teach them Ron Paul, is exactly that. I used to live in northern California, Forestville to be exact, but never made it up to Mendocino, wish I had, Keep up the great work!!!! Hit the Dispensaries with literature!!!!

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Thing about the Super Brochures don't say anything re mj

Have you got something?

Nice, optimistic post

How are Republican candidates in Mendocino on the MJ issues?

Most assume Republicans will be strong drug warriors.

With Obama increasing drug war violence and costs and his downticket Democratic Party buddies supporting more drug war, it's a hole we can drive a truck thru.

Republicans need to make Obama pay for locking up people and terrorizing the rest of us.

In Mendo

GOP is like Democrats, wanting it legalized...
I'm in the decriminalization camp.

I see legalization as a ramped up war on drugs, more laws to break, longer sentances... state getting the money, people getting poorer and sicker as regulations and all the BS begins.

You have it backwards,

You have it backwards, decriminalization doesn't fix the problem it still allows room for cops to come in and raid users for no reason.

At least with marijuana, it needs to be 100% legalized and unregulated. No age rules, no possession amounts, etc. Drug use is up to parents. Parents should be teaching and punishing their kids for use if they chose, not the government.

THC in an anti-carcinogen. Why should something that prevents cancer have any regulations? There is absolutely no harm in smoking marijuana unless paper or blunts are involved. We need to not fight for partial victories. We should fight for full on victories.

Marijuana should be 100% legal to grow, sell, and use anywhere and at any time. We have an inalienable right to use whatever medicine we want to without any government interference. A right is something the state cannot infringe upon. Decriminalization is a privilege.

I don't agree

If having marijuana is the same as having dandelions, why would cops bust you?

Legalization enslaves cannabis to the state for regulation and taxes.

In 1994, I collected over 10K signatures for the first Prop 215. I attended many meetings. Jack Herer was a personal friend of mine. In 1996, I realized the problem was employing the SLANG word, "marijuana". As long as slang was used in the courts, we would lose. Prop 215 passed 56%. I ate crow, until some of the strongest people were arrested and imprisoned a decade mandetory minimums. Steve Kubby fled to Canada. I went to trials in Ventura, San Bernadino, Riverside, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Kern Counties. I raised money and supported the "prisoners on the war on drugs" (we can no longer legally do that). I watched narcs and DAs make mincemeat out of sick compassionate people, and I watched the "movement" head to NORCAL, where now there is the Oaksterdam University teaching trimming, edibles, growing and certifying people and supplying Harborside and other dispensaries with bodies... this is the group that wants legalization, they already pay tremendous amount in taxes. That is NOT what Prop 215 was all about.. in Prop 215 there are NO SALES. When it was first established, growers GAVE 1/4 oz away for free. Now it's a greed market and does not represent peace or health, but crime and greed.

I have nothing to do with any of it at all and I'm sorry it's where it's at, but that's not where folks like me and Jack Herer wanted it... last inniative I worked on with Jack was the California Cannabis Hemp and Health Inniative 2008. Oh.. there's a new one http://www.jackherer.com/initiative/

Prohibition is the worst regulation, I'll take Taxes any day...

http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/regulate-marijuana-li...

5 days left to collect signatures.

Prohibition is the worst regulation, legalization would make it like alcohol. I have friends that home brew, friends that barter. There'll always be the market and greedy folks, let them have their enslavement.

Think of it like sports, or music; we can play our own music, it is important for us to play music (I wouldn't put it past a fascist to make music illegal), there'll always be the greedy record labels suing kids over sharing music, but in that same "market" there'll always be those that share their music for free, play locally, teach, etc.

There'll always be pro-sports, and there'll always be amateur sports; our choice is which life style we want to live. That is freedom.

I don't mind the State taxing Marijuana, Alcohol, Tobacco, etc., it is better than Prohibition, and right now, we have prohibition, let's move "forward" and work on making it "better" after we make this difficult, long over-due, step in the right direction.

That's what's on my mind...

Jack Wagner

I don't agree

Furthermore, my bet is you are going to get what you want, but it won't be the way you thought it would.

The state wants WAY more than it's fair share of profits/tax off cannabis crops, it wants it legalized (govt gets money when it's legal), otherwise it would close Oasterdam U and Harborside down, neither are actually operating under Prop215.

What's going to happen is if you do not have a certificate or license or recommendation from a licensed Dr, you will go to jail for a 10 Yr min.. More people will go to jail than ever, because it's exactly like the sign on Ron Paul's desk, the government is going to steal even more money to grow a bigger police state.

Be prepared to have a Dr Recommendation and a certificate or license and pay enormous taxes so that the cost is going to sky rocket, and it will costs thousands to have cannabis on your property or body..and court costs will adjust so they can fill those prisons with cannabis users, since to compete globally, we need prison labor.

I think it should be legalized and unregulated

Treat it just like any other plant, I don't see what the big deal is.

How about mangos?

Maybe the government can legalize mangos too?

The government wants to legalize MM to tax it and regulate it.

The federal reserve bank doesn't want it legal because it's a black market industry that covers their tracks.

Good question

As I understand it the laws against importing mango's into California without announcing and allowing inspection by the local agricultural commissioner or director are intended to quarantine pests, I'm not sure how I feel about that, it's a tough question.

On the one hand it seems a somewhat reasonable measure to prevent infestations which could be difficult or maybe even impossible to get rid of once introduced, on the other it is a case of prior restraint which I generally oppose. I certainly think if someone can be shown in a court of law before a trial by jury to have caused an infestation by importing something containing pests then they should certainly be held civilly liable in suits at common law, and possibly criminally liable for gross negligence. I guess I'm just not so sure that someone who imports mangoes that might not have been infested should necessarily be guilty of a crime and fined forty thousand of dollars (or over $1.6 million if found to have willfully violated the regulations) by not announcing and allowing for inspection of the produce by the local agricultural commissioner or director. Here is a case I found where I got those figures http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1750_bombino_ju....

In any case I don't think regulation on the importation of mangoes has much similarity to regulations on cannabis. I don't think any taxes or regulations on cannabis are necessary, I don't think it would be a big deal if it were treated like any other common garden variety plant that poses no risk of damaging other people's property with pest infestation.

Yes of course there are those in government who want to legalize cannabis in order to tax and regulate it, but there are also others in government who want to keep it illegal and continue putting people behind bars for growing, consuming, and trading it. Government is not a monolithic entity there may even be some in government who feel the same way I do about the subject.

As far as the federal reserve bank I honestly don't think individuals within that entity are involved much if at all in the marijuana trade but of course I could be wrong. In my experience cannabis is generally cultivated by relatively small time entrepreneurs, sure there is some limited cartel involvement in the trade but I would venture to guess that most of the production is likely decentralized although I admit I could be wrong. I find it much more likely that the Fed is somehow involved in the opium trade in Afghanistan but that is just a hunch I have no information to back that up.

Criminalizing cannabis created our police state

Instead of universities, they buikd prison compounds, and put cannabis prisoners to work at slave labor wages for international trade through Correctional Institutions and Wackenhut.

They buy billions in weapons, including helicopters, boats, cars, trusks, dogs, guns, bigger guns, ramming devices, night vision... whatever the mi9litary is using, they use too.

It's a war on people and freedom.

As for as good guys in government.. I think there's allot of good guys in government, and then they get a knock on the door, and do what they are told.

Making it legal, means you keep the war in place, just change the rules.

I think cannabis should be free to grow, trade, consume... whatever. It does not to be made legal. It needs to be decriminalized.

That doesn't make sense to me

If you agree that human beings have a right to be free to grow, trade, and consume cannabis without government regulation I don't understand what you mean when you say "It does not to be made legal [sic]". Decriminalization is by definition regulation, and people are certainly not free to grow, trade, and consume cannabis if it is still illegal.

I believe every variety of cannabis should be as legal as any other plant to grow and produce various products for human use without onerous expensive regulations like they have in Socialist Canada and Europe which prevent widespread adoption of cannabis as a staple food crop, a feedstock for animal feed and thousands of industrial purposes, and hold back it's use as a medicinal drug, not to mention outright prohibit it from being consumed as a recreational drug.

If we're trying to stimulate the economy it would be a no brainer to me to legalize a useful plant that could help create jobs surrounding its various uses.

Decriminalization is regulation?

Making cannablis legal, means enslaving cannabis to the state for taxation and regulation.. CONTROL.

Decriminalization means, no taxes, no regulations, no state control, no criminalization.

IMO drugs are for sick people and cannabis is not a drug anymore than tobacco is a drug. Is tobacco legalized, yes, and taxed and regulated.

I'm sure this is what is going to happen to cannabis and my bet is it will be heavily regulated from seed to smoke otr vapor... everyone who touches it will have to have a licence or certificate or pay to touch it.

Care to actually respond to my comments?

It's almost as if you didn't even read what I wrote.

Are you actually interested in having a dialogue or am I wasting my time?

Let me get this straight you say:

"Decriminalization means, no taxes, no regulations, no state control, no criminalization." and that "I think cannabis should be free to grow, trade, consume"

Can I take that to mean that you are in favor of repealing the laws on the books which prohibit the possession, use, cultivation, and sale of cannabis? Because that is what I meant when I said it "should be legal", perhaps it would be more proper of me to say that it "shouldn't be illegal". There is no reason why repealing these laws "means enslaving cannabis to the state for taxation and regulation.. CONTROL". Just to be absolutely crystal clear I am not in favor of passing new laws to tax or regulate cannabis use, cultivation, possession, or sale. I am not in favor of laws requiring certificates or licenses to use, cultivate, possess, buy, or sell cannabis. As far as tobacco is concerned I am in favor of repealing the laws which tax and regulate that substance.

When people refer to "decriminalization" of marijuana they generally mean keeping it illegal (i.e. keeping the laws on the books that prohibit the possession, use, cultivation, and sale of cannabis) but reducing penalties for possession of small quantities from jail-time to petty fines. This is what I meant when I said that "decriminalization is by definition regulation, and people are certainly not free to grow, trade, and consume cannabis if it is still illegal."

Do you define the term decriminalization differently than most people? If so how do you define the term?

Sure GCN3030 I apologise

It's almost as if you didn't even read what I wrote.

I'm sorry

Are you actually interested in having a dialogue or am I wasting my time?

You be the judge of your time, ok?

Let me get this straight you say:

"Decriminalization means, no taxes, no regulations, no state control, no criminalization." and that "I think cannabis should be free to grow, trade, consume"
Can I take that to mean that you are in favor of repealing the laws on the books which prohibit the possession, use, cultivation, and sale of cannabis? Because that is what I meant when I said it "should be legal", perhaps it would be more proper of me to say that it "shouldn't be illegal". There is no reason why repealing these laws "means enslaving cannabis to the state for taxation and regulation.. CONTROL". Just to be absolutely crystal clear I am not in favor of passing new laws to tax or regulate cannabis use, cultivation, possession, or sale. I am not in favor of laws requiring certificates or licenses to use, cultivate, possess, buy, or sell cannabis. As far as tobacco is concerned I am in favor of repealing the laws which tax and regulate that substance.

When Prop 215 began, cannabis was to not sold, but given away. The plan was to "decriminalize", not make a profit or trade any FRNs. As soon as FRNs are part of the picture, legalization begins because the Federal Reserve needs laws (legalization) to regulations and tax. We wanted NOTHING to do with the Federal Reserve, so we wanted ALL cannabis "decrominalized", free to grow, free to share, free to consume, no FRNs, no police, no dispensaries, etc.

When people refer to "decriminalization" of marijuana they generally mean keeping it illegal (i.e. keeping the laws on the books that prohibit the possession, use, cultivation, and sale of cannabis) but reducing penalties for possession of small quantities from jail-time to petty fines. This is what I meant when I said that "decriminalization is by definition regulation, and people are certainly not free to grow, trade, and consume cannabis if it is still illegal."

I don't know anyone who wants to keep it "illegal"(as it is) through decriminalization. I know people who want to keep it illegal because they make a living off it being such, but most people who consume cannabis products do not want the law involved. Decriminalization means the Federal Reserve and it's regulations, taxes, notes, and strong arm of the law have NOTHING to do with anyone's private cannabis consumption. People who want it legal want to sustain the state off taxes, and that means it would be regulated so the Federal Reserve can place the proper tax and use it Keneysian voodoo to manipulate the market.

Do you define the term decriminalization differently than most people? If so how do you define the term?

Decriminalization means it's none of the Federal Reserve Banks business.

I hopes this helps you understand what I am saying. Seems we want the same but languaf=ge is a barrier and I apologise

I honestly don't care about Prop 215 nor did I mention it

I don't know why you bring it up as it is impertinent to this discussion, I never once brought up the issue of medicinal cannabis. If it is not clear from what I wrote I think ideally we should repeal prop 215 along with all the various state and federal laws prohibiting and regulating cannabis. Prop 215 is a state regulation of cannabis, I do not believe the state has the authority to regulate cannabis under the law. Go read the first amendment of your state constitution, Prop 215 and other California State laws regulating and/or prohibiting cannabis are clearly unconstitutional by any plain reading.

Again I don't know why you bring up Prop 215 and "giving away" cannabis versus selling it, making a profit, or trading Federal Reserve Notes. I believe human beings have a right to associate and trade with other people using whatever they so choose to use as a medium of exchange, including but not limited to Federal Reserve Notes. As far as making a profit, I believe it is a good thing and ought to be encouraged as it is the only thing that allows one to reinvest into more efficient means of production capable of producing a higher quality product for a lower cost to the consumer. Contrary to your claims that cannabis is free to grow, their are real costs associated with producing this plant whether it be labor, know-how, nutrients, electricity, lights, fans, ballast, growing medium, containers etc. there is no such thing as a free lunch and there is nothing wrong with charging for it. As far as Prop 215 being "decriminalization", I beg to differ and so do many people who have been charged with cannabis crimes in criminal court in the State of California since that legislation passed.

Anyway I'm still not sure if you are actually reading what I am writing since I made abundantly clear I do not advocate making any new laws to tax or regulate cannabis. I firmly believe we should simply repeal the unconstitutional state and federal laws prohibiting cannabis and then it will no longer be against the "law" (it isn't really against the law since the laws are unconstitutional and therefore null and void but it is against the lore of course and you can be put in a cage if you are caught not complying). This is what I mean when I say I want it to be "legal"; I don't believe it should be against the lore. Not everyone who wants cannabis to be "legal" wants to tax and regulate it to sustain the state. Some of us believe in individual liberty, including the economic freedom to produce and sell all the various products that can be made from cannabis without government license, certificate, regulation, or taxation.

As for so called "decriminalization" I am all for it as a step in the right direction. Prop 215 for example was good in that it at least let people who really need to use cannabis as medicine get it. But make no mistake many people are still being put in cages every day in California for Cannabis charges, it is most certainly still "illegal" in the colloquial sense (that is to say it is against the lore and you will be charged in criminal court if you are caught in possession of this "illicit" substance). Unless you are saying we should repeal the laws prohibiting cannabis you are in favor of keeping it "illegal".

As for the Federal Reserve that is a completely separate issue but since you bring it up I will humor you and tell you what I'd do about that. We should repeal the unconstitutional legal tender laws and laws giving the Federal Reserve a monopoly on note issuance. Furthermore we should move to foreclose on the Federal Reserve and force it to declare bankruptcy for not paying it's bills in specie on demand as promised and required by the US Code and the Constitution. All that institution's assets should be sold at auction for specie and the proceeds returned to the creditors holding banknotes, bank accounts balances, bonds and other debt instruments with the Federal Reserve as a counterparty. Having removed barriers to entry in the marketplace independent free banking institutions will sprout up to serve the public but they will be strictly regulated by contract law, they must pay their bills as promised.

Anyway I don't know why you bothered including my statements in your response since you did not respond to them. To make it easy on you I will ask you one simple question, please actually answer me directly this time, I am begging you.

Are you in favor of repealing the state and federal laws which prohibit cannabis?

I don't know

I'd have to do more research, but off hand I'd say, sure repeal the existing laws. YET, I would think that the vacuum would be new laws that would be worse, becasue repeal isn't ewnough when it comes to protecting people, and why the legalization movement just overlaps and works to redefine the existing (bogus/corrupt)laws.