Here's a thread for posting Letters to the Editor which you have sent to NH papers.
Here's one I sent today to the Keene paper:
Dear folks at the Sentinel:
Sorry for the tardiness in submitting this, but I wanted to thank the City of Keene and the Sentinel staff for some things.? ?I'm one of the three Keene residents who organized the anti-UN protest at Robin Hood Park.? ?Torching a UN flag is a new and controversial thing to do, and we would not have been surprised to encounter official roadblocks, media vilification, etc.? But despite the understandable unease this generated in some quarters, almost no one ever abused their power in reacting to or reporting on our protest plans.? ?
When it comes to the city government; every time I walk into city offices I'm impressed by the helpful and professional demeanor of city staff, even when dealing with something controversial like this.? ?The Sentinel itself didn't give us a free ride, but no one asked you to, and I can't say you treated this unfairly. Even the private political group that opposed this did so in a constructive way.? They reminded us of the many things we have in common, particularly our mutual distrust of the Constitutionally-challenged federal government.
One minor correction to your article:? In protest against the UN's gun control fetish, some of our participants *did* wear open-carried pistols as planned.? I will just assume that their friendly and kind demeanor kept anyone from noticing.? :)
Sent to the Keene Sentinel prior to Christmas by my friend Bill.
A Need to Return to Old Time Values
Who is really to blame for the high taxes and loss of our beloved Thayer High School?
The blame lies in a number of different places, and it is time we did something about it. SAU 38 and the Winchester School Board would be appropriate places for us to start.
Margaret Sullivan, the assistant superintendent of SAU 38, seems to be squarely in the middle of the problems. Under her ?supervision?, Thayer lost its accreditation and much of the pride it has always had. Twenty years ago no one in this town would have voted to send our children out of town in order for them to receive a quality education. The school went down hill despite record town spending on education. I wonder how this was this allowed to happen.
At a recent budget committee meeting, Margaret Sullivan was questioned about how they would accomplish spending on specific projects if the budget for 2005 ?06 does not pass. Her answer was that they would just move money from one line item to another to get the projects done. She also flatly stated that, if it were up to her, she would have spent the $650,000 surplus and not returned any of it to the taxpayers of Winchester. This is not the attitude I want to see in someone expected to handle our tax dollars in a fiscally responsible manner.
It is my understanding that in the past, the school board ran the school system. The school board should once again be giving the orders, following the wishes of the taxpayers. Too many members of the Winchester School Board appear to be just going along with Margaret Sullivan?s requests.
It is time for the school board to take control back from the SAU. The board has a responsibility to keep much tighter control over the expenditures of our tax dollars, while ensuring that our children receive a quality education.
Thank you to our Budget Committee for offering the Winchester taxpayers a school budget that is more in alignment with the wishes of the taxpayers than with the wasteful expenditures that the SAU proposed.
Bill Campbell
Bill Campbell for School Board! ;D
Sent to Portsmouth Herald today:
Regarding your Dec. 3 editorial "Lynch, Scamman can bring positive change," I was terrified to learn from you that New Hampshire has a "dangerously understaffed and underfunded" executive branch.
Could you enumerate these dangers for me, so that I might take immediate steps to protect myself from them?
For instance, am I at risk of reduced taxation resulting from this underfunding? Will this government's failure to spend more money on itself mean that I have to live under a governor who lacks an official SUV? Will I be condemned to citizenship in a state where he or she goes without a salary? What if we end up with one of those "citizen governors?" You know the type?anarchists like Thomas Jefferson are always crowing about them.
I know what I'll do...I'll move to Massachusetts, where people have their priorities straight, where government is "adequately funded" and leaders are given sufficient power to impose their will on the people.
Sent to Letters at fosters <dot.>com
Thanks for Colin Manning's level synopsis of the upcoming state house session ("Budget and education funding top list," December 26).
There is a lot to fear in this session if you're big on individual liberty. Bills to restrict cell phones in cars, ban scooters from roads, tax charity poker...one begins to wonder what state we are living in and whether there is a new state motto in effect.
But the article contains good news, too. I'm happy to hear that state senator Tom Eaton is backing the institution of video poker machines at state racetracks. This will allow the state to raise some new revenue without new taxation.
However it's important to make sure that new revenue of this type does *not* become a source of new spending. Instead, it should be a tool for destroying taxation. The state should decline one tax dollar for every gambling dollar it obtains.
For example, if these poker machines generate X amount of new revenue, and the state's hated corporate tax generates Y amount of revenue, then we ought to write the poker bill so that it provides for a proportional decrease in the biz tax.
Anyway, poker machines are just one way for the state to fund itself without the ugly force of taxation. Imagine if we instituted every practical means of consensual revenue generation.... Lotteries, casinos in towns that want them, sale of advertising space in state offices, billboards on state overpasses. There are downsides to all of the above, but nothing here rivals the evil of forced taxation. And I'm sure there are much more innovative ways to consensually fund the state than my humble mind can scrape up today. Anyway, Mr. Eaton has taken a step in the right direction which I hope will lead to much profit and reduced pressure for taxation. Good for him!
How does the state get revenue from this if not by a tax? Or am I misunderstanding what's going on?
PRINTED in this morning's New Hampshire Sunday News:
Alliance to rate politicians on keeping NH free
To the Editors: Thanks for great articles, editorials, and letters in 2004. As always, your keen eyes helped keep me informed.
As we enter the 2005 legislative season, I have an additional set of eyes, the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to keeping alive the "Live free or die" spirit.
We have all heard that what is changing New Hampshire's political landscape are the immigrants from other states - particularly Massachusetts. Yet, this great paper has repeatedly exposed the "we can blame the newcomers bit" as a big myth. Bernadett Malone's piece, "Be thankful for those Mass immigrants," (on Nov. 14) comes to mind.
As I see it, the big myth has become something like a blanket that a child might pull over his head when he hears strange noises in the night. The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance Legislative Index which scores and ranks lawmakers on pro- and anti-liberty votes will help expose who is really making those noises. Through political and civic action, I think the liberty alliance will help make some of those strange noises go away.
I joined the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance (for free) and you can to. They are at P.O. Box 4241, Manchester, can be called at 358-5079, and can be found on the Web.
John Connell
Salem
Nice piece, John.
Great Job, John :D
They print LTEs like that here in NH? 8)
Great, John! :) I sent it to the NHLA yahoo group.
From David Mincin to Nashua Telegraph:
Dear editors at the Telegraph:
As you may know there is a major flap brewing in Hampton over the attempt by their zoning board to force a 95-year-old woman out of her (rather nice) home.
On January 25, Hampton Building Inspector Kevin Schultz will face her down in court...but first you the people of New Hampshire will have a chance to face *him* down and strike back against the zoning abuse he represents. Our protest will be in front of the Rockingham County Courthouse, 10 Route 125, Brentwood, NH, Tuesday Jan. 25 at 9:30 a.m. That's when Schultz will attempt to financially finish off his victims, 95-year-old Myrtle Woodward and her niece Barbara Burbank...all in the name of protecting them from themselves. We hope you will not sit by and let it happen quietly. If you've been waiting for the right moment to take a stand against zoning abuse, you need wait no longer.
For more details visit the New Hampshire Underground (nhunderground.com) or call Dave at 603.721.1490. Let's make this count.
Letter from Dave Mincin to the Daily Democrat:
----
Dear friends at Fosters:
There's increasing attention being paid lately to zoning abuse, i.e. the excessive use of zoning laws to force people into poverty and homelessness.
One example of an attempted abuse is the appalling situation in Hampton, where building inspector Kevin Schultz is attempting to fine a family almost $200,000 for building a room on top of their garage...then force them to tear the room down. This despite the fact that they obtained a permit to build the room.
On January 25 Schultz's fellow citizens will pay him a visit to remind him that this is still the Live Free or Die state. All freedom-loving New Hampshirites are invited to participate in the demonstration. Our protest will be in front of the Rockingham County Courthouse, 10 Route 125, Brentwood, NH, Tuesday Jan. 25, 9:30 a.m. That's when Shultz will face his victims, 95-year-old Myrtle Woodward and her niece Barbara Burbank. There in court he will try to force his will on them in the name of protecting them from themselves. We hope you will not stand by and let it happen quietly.
Bring whatever props and signs you like, bring your friends, and most importantly
bring your love of freedom. If you've been waiting for the right moment to take
a stand against zoning abuse, you need wait no longer. For more details visit underground.soulawakenings.com
or call Dave at 603.___
Mincin posted a similar LTE to the Herald around 1/8
You know, Dave Mincin writes much better letters to the editor than you do, Dada. You should take some lessons from him. Those were excellent!
Geez.....Critics!! ;D
Sent to the Keene State College paper via their submission form at
http://www.keeneequinox.com/main.cfm?include=submit
Dear folks at the Equinox:
In a free country, Keene State College students would be allowed to drink alcohol legally. Yes drunk drivers should be locked up, and yes there are legitimate concerns when *minors* drink. But if you're 18 you're an adult...old enough to be drafted. If we can trust you with an assault rifle, we can trust you with a beer. Legalization would also make it easier for 18 year olds to party in safe places rather than driving to and from hidden events.
Help us make this country free again (or at least this state). Visit the New Hampshire Underground at NHunderground.com. There you can help us organize protests and activities aimed at returning the drinking age to 18, where it belongs. If nothing else, it will annoy the Feds!
We can't get the law changed tomorrow. But we can put seeds of doubt in the minds of the public regarding the current "Nanny Rules" that have driven you underground. And, successful or not, protests are a lot of fun! :)
If you want to go directly to the thread where we are discussing this cause, head to tinyurl.com/4wdny
The nation's busybodies have stripped you of a liberty you never had the chance to lawfully enjoy. It's time to regain that liberty and put the "Free" back in "Live Free or Die."
excellent
You know...that would be one of the best places to do recruiting for the FSP. ?Many of those students are from out of state. ?Wouldn't it be great to get them to commit to staying here for the cause. ?Something to think about...
editor@dartreview.com
(You can publish this if you like)
Help return drinking age to 18
Dear folks at TDR:
Great to see the Review is still in action 20 years after I first read about your predecessors' raid on a local "South African Shantytown." The Left and other authoritarians pose different threats today than they did when I was a college student, but they have succeeded in eroding many of our freedoms.
For instance, in a free country, Dartmouth College students would be allowed to drink alcohol legally. Yes drunk drivers should be locked up, and yes there are legitimate concerns when *minors* drink. But if you're 18 you're an adult...old enough to be drafted. If we can trust you with an assault rifle, we can trust you with a beer. Legalization would also make it easier for 18 year olds to party in safe places rather than driving to and from hidden events.
Help us make this country free again (or at least this state). Visit the New Hampshire Underground at NHunderground.com. There you can help us organize protests and activities aimed at returning the drinking age to 18, like it was in the 50s and 60s. If nothing else, it will annoy the Feds!
We can't get the law changed tomorrow. But we can put seeds of doubt in the minds of the public regarding the current "Nanny Rules" that have driven you underground. And, successful or not, protests are a lot of fun! :)
If you want to go directly to the thread where we are discussing this cause, head to tinyurl.com/4wdny
The nation's busybodies have stripped you of a liberty you never had the chance to lawfully enjoy. It's time to regain that liberty and put the "Free" back in "Live Free or Die."
wrote this for Telegraph
Dear folks at the Telegraph:
Thanks for the Jan. 19 story about that local family who successfully used their handguns to stop an intruder.
The news from other states is so often dominated by stories of criminal successes. Part of what makes New Hampshire special is that we the citizens often lord it over the criminals. This is partly because we have fewer thug-enabling laws than most places do. Gun restrictions, criminal-friendly self defense rules, both are relatively lacking here, so criminals have a fairly rough time of it. If we could further reduce gun restrictions and further liberalize a person's right to defend herself...we could give the bad guys a much tougher time than we already do.
By the way, your article reminded me of something: I hope everyone will consider owning at least two guns rather than one, because the police may have to borrow one of them as evidence if you ever use it to stop a crime.
To letters@fosters.com on 1-23-05
Dear Editor:
Chief Sawyer wants Big Brother to tell all of us to wear our seatbelts now
(Belmont rep's law, 1-23). The rationale is that passing a law will suddenly
make us all safe. Curiously, he ignores the fact that seat belt use rates
have nearly doubled in 16 years of education-only, all without a law to make
us 'feel' safe. Obviously a law is not necessary to improve seat belt use
rates.
What isn't discussed is the potential negative side effects of wearing seat
belts, and legally requiring them. Though statistically it's safer to wear
them, there are cases where wearing seat belts causes injury or death. It's
very likely that I would not have been born had my mother been wearing her
seatbelt on a particular day more than 30 years ago. I'm thankful she was
free to choose the safer option that fateful day. Without that freedom, Big
Brother might have been responsible for killing me before I was born (and
possibly my mother, too).
This isn't a public safety issue, it's a personal safety issue. I choose to
wear (or not wear) my seat belt because I believe it's best for me, not
because I worship Big Brother. The Free Staters have it right - don't
legislate common sense.
Varrin Swearingen
Keene, NH
To opinion@seacoast.com on 1-26-05
Dear Editor:
Hampton town building inspector Kevin Schultz thinks that a town without
zoning would be "scary" and would complicate growth. I wonder if Mr. Schultz
gets out much? Has he been to some "scary" towns without zoning?
Maybe he thinks that size is an issue? I suppose Hampton is just getting too
big to live without zoning? After all, a little town like Houston, TX (pop.
more than 2.1 Million, 600 sq. miles) can live without zoning, but big 'ole
Hampton couldn't possibly survive without kicking old ladies out of their
homes. "Scary?" Absolutely.
Maybe Mr. Schultz is scared about his property values in a world without
zoning? As a New Hampshire homeowner, I share his concerns. But the data
shows that many neighborhoods in Houston have appreciated faster than those
in Bellaire and West University (independent cities within Houston), both
with zoning laws. If it's property values he's concerned about, it sounds
like zoning is "scary".
Zoning is an assault on property rights. Theory and paractice both
demonstrate that strong property rights make for a higher quality of life and
standard of living. Myrtle Woodward and Barbara Burbank can probably tell
you just how "scary" zoning really is.
Varrin Swearingen
Keene, NH
Quote from: varrin on January 27, 2005, 05:08 AM NHFT
To opinion@seacoast.com on 1-26-05
Dear Editor:
Hampton town building inspector Kevin Schultz thinks that a town without
zoning would be "scary" and would complicate growth. I wonder if Mr. Schultz
gets out much? Has he been to some "scary" towns without zoning?
Maybe he thinks that size is an issue? I suppose Hampton is just getting too
big to live without zoning? After all, a little town like Houston, TX (pop.
more than 2.1 Million, 600 sq. miles) can live without zoning, but big 'ole
Hampton couldn't possibly survive without kicking old ladies out of their
homes. "Scary?" Absolutely.
Maybe Mr. Schultz is scared about his property values in a world without
zoning? As a New Hampshire homeowner, I share his concerns. But the data
shows that many neighborhoods in Houston have appreciated faster than those
in Bellaire and West University (independent cities within Houston), both
with zoning laws. If it's property values he's concerned about, it sounds
like zoning is "scary".
Zoning is an assault on property rights. Theory and paractice both
demonstrate that strong property rights make for a higher quality of life and
standard of living. Myrtle Woodward and Barbara Burbank can probably tell
you just how "scary" zoning really is.
Varrin Swearingen
Keene, NH
Awesome Varrin.
JP
Quote from: varrin on January 27, 2005, 05:08 AM NHFT
To opinion@seacoast.com on 1-26-05
Dear Editor:
Hampton town building inspector Kevin Schultz thinks that a town without
zoning would be "scary" and would complicate growth. I wonder if Mr. Schultz
gets out much? Has he been to some "scary" towns without zoning?
Maybe he thinks that size is an issue? I suppose Hampton is just getting too
big to live without zoning? After all, a little town like Houston, TX (pop.
more than 2.1 Million, 600 sq. miles) can live without zoning, but big 'ole
Hampton couldn't possibly survive without kicking old ladies out of their
homes. "Scary?" Absolutely.
Maybe Mr. Schultz is scared about his property values in a world without
zoning? As a New Hampshire homeowner, I share his concerns. But the data
shows that many neighborhoods in Houston have appreciated faster than those
in Bellaire and West University (independent cities within Houston), both
with zoning laws. If it's property values he's concerned about, it sounds
like zoning is "scary".
Zoning is an assault on property rights. Theory and paractice both
demonstrate that strong property rights make for a higher quality of life and
standard of living. Myrtle Woodward and Barbara Burbank can probably tell
you just how "scary" zoning really is.
Varrin Swearingen
Keene, NH
I sent your letter to Barbara Burbank, her reply was:
Thank you , Jim, and thank Varrin for me. He is right - it does feel so "scary". An old friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer in Massachusetts used the work "malicious" - that's what it feels like to us!
Barbara
I sent this to:
opinion@seacoastonline.com
in response to:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/01242005/news/60765.htm
Help us remain us
Dear friends at the Herald:
In response to Shir Haberman's January 24 article "State gets poor gun-safety rating:" I'm disappointed. When writing non-editorial pieces...aren't you supposed to at least *pretend* you are getting the other side of a story? Since you never did so, I will do it for you.
I was at the Januaray 25 committee hearing where our state reps entertained public feedback on the gun control bill your article refers to, HB 208. 208 would restrict the ability of New Hampshire residents to carry firearms near schools and possibly near school buses. Currently we are one of only a handful of states which still trust licensed adults to lawfully carry guns in or near schools.
Here is what I told the committee:
It's been my experience, generally, that when New Hampshire does something one way and the rest of the states do it another way...
We are right and they are *wrong.*
I don't want us to be more like Massachusetts. I want us to be more like *us.*
Please help us remain us. Vote against this gun control bill.
I'm told this was the only testimony of the day which earned applause from the reps.
Made a correction and did some tinkering, then re-submitted to Herald:
Had a spelling error in the previous submission of this LTE; here is the corrected version. I'm always tinkering with these things! Thanks.
---
Help us remain us
Dear friends at the Herald:
In response to Shir Haberman's January 24 article "State gets poor gun-safety rating:" I'm disappointed. When writing non-editorial pieces...aren't you supposed to at least *pretend* you are getting the other side of a story? There are probably five NH organizations you could have easily contacted for a rebutting viewpoint, but since you never did...I will articulate that viewpoint for you.
I was at the January 25 committee hearing where our state reps entertained public feedback on the gun control bill your article refers to, HB 208. Two-oh-eight would restrict the ability of New Hampshire residents to carry firearms near schools and possibly near school buses. Currently we are one of only a handful of states which still trust licensed adults to lawfully carry guns in or near schools.
Here is what I told the committee:
It's been my experience, generally, that when New Hampshire does something one way and the rest of the states do it another way...
We are right and they are *wrong.*
I don't want us to be more like Massachusetts. I want us to be more like *us.*
Please help us remain us. Vote against this gun control bill.
I'm told this was the only testimony of the day which earned applause from the reps.
Dear folks at the Monitor:
In response to your Feb. 3 editorial "Constitution shouldn't hold state hostage to outdated policy..." I was not aware that the New Hampshire Constitution was holding me hostage. I was under the impression that it was protecting me from plans endorsed by the Concord Monitor!
:) ;) :D ;D
Sent to Telegraph:
In "No reason to repeal N.H. hate-crime law," Feb. 4, you argue against state reps Ed Bicknell and Dan Itse, opposing their long-shot effort to repeal the state's hate crime law. Without getting too deeply into that precise debate, let me take issue with the assumptions underpinning your editorial. You assume that individuals belonging to minority groups should depend on the government to protect them. Yes, government has a role here, but it is not a reliable protector. It's a clumsy contraption beyond the control of the victim. Sometimes it saves the day, sometimes it gets there in time to draw your body outline and sometimes it is an outright *enabler* of hate crime.
Let's say a nice local Jewish family looks out their window, sees two hooded figures burning something in their yard. Let's assume the parents are members, in good standing, of Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership. Maybe the mother is a crack shot and puts a round or two through the chest of one gap-toothed supremacists (Congratulations ma'am, you just cut the state Klan population by half)!
Imagine the troubles such an act of charity would land this lady in... not from whitehoods but from the authorities! She would likely face years of legal woes depending on the zeal of the prosecutor. Maybe the bad guys or their families will use the government against them via lawsuit. Her whole family could face financial ruin or worse.
Instead of fawning over hate crime (thought-crime) laws, maybe we should rethink some of the laws that overrestrict minorities (and all decent folk) from defending their own persons and property.
Dada,
I like it. ;)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on February 12, 2005, 09:18 PM NHFT
Sent to Telegraph:
In "No reason to repeal N.H. hate-crime law," Feb. 4, you argue against state reps Ed Bicknell and Dan Itse, opposing their long-shot effort to repeal the state's hate crime law.? ?Without getting too deeply into that precise debate, let me take issue with the assumptions underpinning your editorial.? You assume that individuals belonging to minority groups should depend on the government to protect them.? Yes, government has a role here, but it is not a reliable protector.? It's a clumsy contraption beyond the control of the victim.? ?Sometimes it saves the day, sometimes it gets there in time to draw your body outline and sometimes it is an outright *enabler* of hate crime.? ?
Let's say a nice local Jewish family looks out their window, sees two hooded figures burning something in their yard.? Let's assume the parents are members, in good standing, of Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership.? ?Maybe the mother is a crack shot and puts a round or two through the chest of one gap-toothed supremacists (Congratulations ma'am, you just cut the state Klan population by half)!
Imagine the troubles such an act of charity would land this lady in... not from whitehoods but from the authorities!? She would likely face years of legal woes depending on the zeal of the prosecutor.? Maybe the bad guys or their families will use the government against them via lawsuit.? Her whole family could face financial ruin or worse.
Instead of fawning over hate crime (thought-crime) laws, maybe we should rethink some of the laws that overrestrict minorities (and all decent folk) from defending their own persons and property.
Do you open fire on two kids smashing your mailbox too?
Yes you do- but you use roman candels, were not kill hungry just protective ;)
Good one, Dave.
GDouglas wrote:
<<Do you open fire on two kids smashing your mailbox too?>>
I'm thinking you should have the right and be able to use your discretion. Maybe I'm extreme.
I'd probably fire a warning shot in either case, but I'd be more likely to aim for the chest if I thought they represented a long term threat.
My point is why would you shoot at a member of the KKK and not the kid smashing your mailbox. They are both trespassing and both destroying personal property. Taking a shot at a the Klan implies that because of what they are (or are thinking) requires a more drastic response. Isn't the whole point of getting rid of hate crime legislation to remove punishing some one for what they are thinking?
Personaly I would not shoot at either of them, Kids or Klan. I might step out on the porch with a shot gun and tell them to get out. One of them ponding on the door with a bat would be different.
I'm am not defending the KKK at all. In my perfect world they would not exist.
Sent to Laconia paper
Dear folks at the Citizen:
In your Feb. 14 editorial "Medicaid: It's broke; now fix it," you argue
that New Hampshire has been cheating the Feds out of Medicaid money.
On the whole, it is the other way around. The District of Coercion steals
around a buck from N.H. for every eighty cents it sends back (source: lfod.org).
The real cheater is the Constitutionally-challenged Federal government. Were this
nation's Founders alive today they would be in the woods waging a shooting war against
it. In their absence, or until we ditch Federal programs entirely, a little counter-cheating
will have to do.
Glenn I think you make a good point; but there is a difference between government judging thought and an individual judging thought. That's why I'm comfortable with an individual having this latitude to discriminate but not the governmnet. Not an issue I'd fight all day over, but whenever Bick and company are out on a limb I'm going to generally try and back 'em.
Rodinia is posting this as an LTE somewhere but posted it first here on a different thread
----
Hello fellow NH citizens,
My name is Suzanne. I spoke in opposition to HB705 on Thursday. I am not affiliated with any organization.
It is my feeling that the majority of you aren?t grasping the big picture here. The big picture is Liberty.
Liberty;
The quality or state of being free:
A: the power to do as one pleases
B: freedom from physical restraint
C: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
D: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
E: the power of choice.
Liberty is what our founding fathers fought and died for. Liberty is unalienable and constitutionally protected. I?m tired of politics by hear-say impeding on my life and rights. If you don?t know what you are talking about, either learn, or keep quiet.
Seatbelt mandates garner the states who submit higher compliance numbers a reward. There is a motive for this mandate.
I?m not disagreeing with claims that seatbelts save lives. That isn?t what this mandate is about... This is about suffocating restriction and control.
That, and a concept called ?social cost theory? Those interested, look it up. I?ll say this about it; cheeseburgers, cigarettes and alcohol are all still legal. For now.
My argument is founded with the knowledge that I am an individual, free to make choices regarding my body. If I am forced to buckle up, I?m under the false assumption that I am safer, and so is everyone else. That?s just human nature.
People will drive more aggressive and less safe, increasing the number of accidents.
The people who support this bill aren?t giving you the benefit of the doubt. They assume they know what is best for you and you aren?t capable of making a responsible decision of your own free will.
"The spirit of 1776 is not dead. It has only been slumbering. The body of the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous feelings have been played on by some fact with more fiction; they have been the dupes of artful maneuvers, and made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves. But time and truth have dissipated the delusion, and opened their eyes." ---Thomas Jefferson- March 12, 1799
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
In response to your guest editorial "A bipartisan deal can resolve education funding," by John H. Sununu and Eugene Van Loan...
Yes it would be good if the state's elected government can fix this issue to the advantage of taxpayers. Yes a Constitutional amendment would be great, striking down the judges' authoritarian inroads against the peoples' right to limit state spending. But ultimately these things may not happen.
The "Claremont court" has imposed upon us de facto taxation without representation. If the current court repeats that trespass upon our liberties and the House remains unable to pass an amendment...we (the people, not the government) need a Plan C.
What this would be I don't know...a property tax revolt? A campaign of civil disobedience and protest? Perhaps a grass roots brainstorming process is in order, and I *do* know the place to carry that out. If any UL readers want to bounce this idea around and perhaps turn it into action, I and other constructively disgruntled folks will be waiting up for you on the forums at NHfree.com. See you there!
:) Dude. :)
That's good!
Oh, has it been sent?
Ya I sent it on the 21st. I have no way of telling whether it gets printed however. I did get an invite from one of their editors to keep sending them LTEs, so I'm assuming everything I send will appear if they don't balk at the occasional URL references.
Sent to Sentinel in Keene:
Dear folks at the Sentinel:
I wanted to thank Keene school board member Karl Hecker and others who have worked to persuade the board to sell the unneeded administrative building at 34 West Street. Now the issue is up as a warrant article for us voters to decide. Whether you are a supporter of school spending or an anti-tax activist, this warrant article serves your interest and will help nudge the gridlocked board to action.
Selling the building is expected to save the district hundreds of thousands a year which can either be given back to the taxpayers or spent on schools. Right now it's being spent on something which closely resembles empty space. I'm voting to sell!
Dave Mincin LTE to Concord Monitor
---
Dear folks at the Monitor:
Thanks for this month's awesome editorial criticizing the Bushniks for too much
spending. This is a problem we historically haven't been able to fix by changing
leaders or swapping between the two parties. It's something that will have to be
remedied by starving the monster.
Individual tax evaders and refuseniks are heroes, but not all of us are in a position
to do what they are doing. The institution most suited to spike Bush's coffee, the
one that can best face down the federal monster, may be state government. And
the state government most capable of doing this may be ours.
In 2003, state reps Ober and Cady authored House Bill 1193, which would have established
a committee to study "the constitutional validity of the federal income tax
and constitutional abuses in the collection of the income tax, specifically as it
affects New Hampshire citizens." This bill failed then, but I would like
to see it come up again...or perhaps a bill exempting N.H. residents from having
to pay the Federal Income Tax. Another option is a bill which forbids local and
state government from cooperating with Federal authorities on tax cases.
We have gone past the point where we can work within the Constitutionally-challenged
national government system to regain our liberties, but the Founders foresaw this
and gave us a shield with which to protect ourselves. That shield is states' rights,
but it will only protect us if we pick it up.
If you wish to join other N.H. residents in a discussion of this issue, visit tinyurl.com/4vhpm
perfectamundo 8)
Dave Mincin's LTE for Portsmouth Herald
Dear editors at the Herald:
Since you have for the moment eased off on your coverage of the Hampton zoning board's
authoritarian crusade against a 96-year-old homeowner, I will do my best to play
reporter today and bring your readers up to date Over the last two weeks there
are a couple of developments to report.
As you originally reported, Hampton's town government has filed suit against 96-year-old
Myrtle Woodward and her family over alleged, rather minor, zoning violations in
the construction of a rec room over their garage. Basically they're saying that
a bed and sink were found there, that Woodward and family are allowing a relative
to use the room like an apartment. Oh, and they want the family to pay almost $200
grand in fines.
Since mid-January there have been three city hearings and one canceled court date,
each of these events attended by protesters from all over New Hampshire who consider
Myrtle a sort of modern day Rosa Parks. Average turnout has been 12 protesters
per event. All these meetings have culminated in various delays and continuances,
then recently a town "finding" that the rec room is a dwelling. The most
recent hearing, on Feb. 24 was inconclusive but generally thought to have gone badly
for the family...observers say this thing could drag on for another year.
However things aren't going well for the town's officials either, especially from
a PR standpoint. As town governments across the state watch this situation, they
have to be asking themselves...how can we prevent this kind of public relations
nightmare from happening to us? Should we invest so much authority in our zoning
boards or even have zoning? Grafton, Unity and Houston, TX have done fine without
it. Another problem for Hampton is that they are spending spend tens of thousands
in tax dollars on lawyers to fight this case.
At any rate, as long as this persecution continues of people who pose no threat
to others, whose only crime is to act as though they had some remnant of property
rights, opposition will continue as well. To stay up to date on this and find out
how to participate in our support of Myrtle, visit NHfree.com.
David Mincin LTE for Nashua Telegraph:
Dear editors at the Telegraph:
Thanks for Anne Lundregan's Feb. 19 article "Residents lose lawsuit over home assessments." This case is unusual in that New Hampshire residents were turning to the Federal government for protection against N.H. government entities. Normally it's the Feds who are out of line, not the usually benign state government. But as this case reminds us, the Feds are pretty useless when tasked with protecting Constitutional rights. I'm glad to hear the residents are continuing this fight; there is no reason why state or city government inspectors should be able to force themselves into our homes under penalty of abatement denial. The state was doing just fine before its government began allowing this ugly 4th amendment violation in 1994.
God bless Tony Lekas and the others who have taken up this cause that the rest of us may live in more freedom.
Nashua Telegraph
* How to submit letter: Use their e-mail form at http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=opinion
* Information they require: From their site: "Although the paper does not publish phone numbers or street addresses (unless specifically requested), that information must be included with letters for verification purposes."
TRAFFIC UPDATE!
Traffic may be heavier than usual as the URL is published (above the fold) on the Opinion page of the Union Leader today.
The new traffic may have started when People need a "Plan C" by one Dave Ridley of Keene ended with ". . . NHfree.com. See you there!"
It is unknow at this time how much traffic to expect or how long it will last . . . ;D
Letter by me for Foster's:
Dear folks at Foster's:
In response to your Feb. 28th article "Officials say heroin use on the rise in Granite State:"
If in fact we do have a heroin epidemic, we have it because of - not in spite of - unconstitutional bureaucracies like the Office of National Drug Control Policy. And there's no reason to believe local authorities can alleviate such problems either. We've given the government power to tell us what we can and can't put in our bodies, handed it force-funding to fight inanimate substances and consensual trade. No wonder there's more of both.
Dave Mincin sent this LTE to Laconia Citizen:
Dear editors at the Citizen:
>
>In "This bill's too far gone to be fixed," Feb. 28, you argue that
SB110,
>the insurance bill affecting small businesses, should be scrapped.
>
>But I'm wondering what all these state bureaucrats and politicians are
>doing poking around in the affairs of small businesses in the first place.
>For that matter, why are they fiddling with insurance company rules?
>Their partial control over these institutions is not a source of economic
>safety; it is a source of financial suffering. Get the state completely
>out of this matter and watch how fast the bad insurance companies fail
>while the good ones multiply here.
>
>Government has one legitimate purpose; to protect people from assaulting or
>defrauding each other. All this other is nonsense, an assault by the
>authorities upon their own legitimacy.
Dear Editor,
On Tuesday the citizens of Unity will be asked to vote on a very important issue, zoning.
Many say we need zoning to save our community, but wait!
What does zoning do to your property rights? Zoning means a board will determine what you
may and may not do to your property. Want to build a barn, add an addition? Only if the zoning
board says you may. Do you really want to loose control of how you utilize your property? Don't
you think you know how best to utilize your property?
Ask Barbara Burbank about the Hampton ZBA. Seems Barbara had a problem. Her Aunt Myrtle
age 96, had kitties, and her daughter Kim was alergic. Barbara asked the ZBA for permission to
build a seperate living area for Kim so they could keep the family together. No, no, says the
zoning gods. To make a long story short. Barbara and here family, three generations of independent women, are now in court. The town of Hampton, and the ZBA are suing them
for almost $200,000, at the taxpayers expense no less. Think it couldn't happen to you?
I'm hopeful you will keep Unity the special place that it is, and vote no for zoning. Your property
rights depend on it.
David Mincin
Civic Action Chair
New Hampshire Liberty Alliance
Box 872
Dover, NH 03821
742-6300 x20
Just sent this to Mary's paper in Unity.
In Foster's:
Seat belts should not be legislated
By KEITH MURPHY
Legislative Coordinator, N.H. Liberty Alliance
The citizens arguing for a mandatory seat-belt law in your story of Feb. 21 have something in common. They all fall victim to the irrational belief that common sense should be legislated.
For example, Paul Masterson, visiting from Maine, said, ?I think seat belts should be worn.? Ergo, in his opinion, the law should require them.
The traditional and legitimate role of government is protecting citizens from each other. Enlarging this role to include forcing citizens to make common sense decisions can lead to some truly intrusive laws. Using the same logic advocated by seat-belt Nazis, the state should outlaw leaning out of windows or eating fast food, or require the use of floss on a daily basis.
Of course, I wear a seat belt. It?s just common sense. But, as an adult I don?t need the state to force me to make good decisions, and I resent any attempt by others to intervene in my day-to-day affairs.
To the police chiefs lobbying for this law, please, stick to catching real criminals, murderers and thieves and rapists, and leave the rest of us alone. To the doctors and nurses lobbying for this law, please, stick to providing the services you are paid very well to perform, and let us as individuals be responsible for our own health decisions.
Legislating common sense raises the state to the role of parent, while reducing us all to the role of children.
Many people in New Hampshire have moved here because we value the liberty and responsibility over our lives that have gradually eroded in the other 49 states. We love that the taxes are low and that the laws are few. New Hampshire is special and unique, one of the last places that people are really free to make their own decisions, and to reap the consequences.
If you need the state to make those decisions for you, to protect you from being held responsible for consequences, then I would urge you to consider seeking some real estate in our neighbor to the south. They do this sort of thing all the time.
LTE by me for Portsmouth Herald:
Dear folks at the Herald:
Regarding Joe Adler's article "Feds eye agency complex at Pease," March 4:
Personally I would like to see reductions in the Federal presence in New Hampshire, not increases. Every new building they move into here is a new source of control over our lives.
At the rate it taxes and regulates us, the FedGov is closer to being an occupier than a protector.
----
if you want to send an LTE in NH , you can use the handy guide at
http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/BeTheMedia.php
Sent to Monitor:
Regarding your March 26 news brief on the the Federal (DEA) cocaine bust in Manchester...
I have questions about this bust:
1) Did it clearly and directly involve issues of interstate trade (over which the
Feds have Constitutional authority)?
2) If not, was this raid Constitutional? On what grounds? Where does the U.S.
Constitution authorize Federal raids of this type inside New Hampshire territory?
3) Were there in fact far fewer drug problems here before Washington started getting
involved?
4) Is it true that busts like this one tend to raise the price of cocaine, making
the cocaine trade more lucrative and deadly?
5) Is the DEA making efficient use of the money it got from you last April 15?
6) Is it true that DEA stands for "Druglord Enhancement Agency?"
Just asking.
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
In response to your March 12 article about a new state property tax plan:
I don't claim to know whether the plan is less bad than other plans for funding
our government-run education-prevention system. But I do know that incomprehensible
schemes like this are the inevitable result of three misguided notions:
1) The idea that you must be forced to pay for your neighbor's education.
2) The idea that people and towns should receive subsidies for being poor.
3) The notion that the state courts have a right to force citizens to fund
government schools. That's taxation without representation, as these
judges are unelected rulers.
There are plenty of other folks who have ideas regarding how your money should be
spent. We read about them in the papers, see pictures of them in prison. Since
they're not with the government we usually refer to them as "thieves."
From me to Keene Sentinel:
Dear editors at the Sentinel:
I would like to know why I received a propaganda mailing from the Keene Board of Education
Prevention telling me how to vote March 8. Is it true that they were also paying for radio advertising? I would like to know if any of these boring but presumably expensive communications were taxpayer funded. If so, is such a practice (compelled speech) legal? If legal, Is it *ethical?* Can the board in good conscience force your
readers to subsidize propaganda?
I thought education funds and taxes were supposed to help children and teachers, but I suspect this is par for the course when it comes to the way government educrats spend our money.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 29, 2005, 08:58 PM NHFT
From me to Keene Sentinel:
Dear editors at the Sentinel:
I would like to know why I received a propaganda mailing from the Keene Board of Education
Prevention telling me how to vote March 8.? ?Is it true that they were also paying for radio advertising?? I would like to know if any of these boring but presumably expensive communications were taxpayer funded.? If so, is such a practice (compelled speech) legal?? ?If legal, Is it *ethical?*? Can the board in good conscience force your
readers to subsidize propaganda?? ?
I thought education funds and taxes were supposed to help children and teachers, but I suspect this is par for the course when it comes to the way government educrats spend our money.
This constitutes 'compelled speech' and no it is not legal but yes, it is done all the time so much so that folks do not even know it's not legal to use taxpayer monies to promote ballot issues, especially where it concerns spending of taxpayer monies.
sent to nashua paper
Dear folks at the Telegraph:
Thanks much for Cal Grant's April 17 editorial "United Nations isn't working." When he says we should get the UN out of the U.S. he's on the right track. But when he says we should replace it with an organization of free nations, I'm wondering: Would the U.S. qualify for membership? Would any nation qualify?
Even here in New Hampshire, perhaps the least unfree state in the world's least unfree nation, we are far from having the liberty our Founders fought to bequeath us. We pay, on average, a third of our incomes in taxes. Our homes are subject to *interior* inspection by municipal bureaucrats whose salaries we are forced to pay. We are not free to decide what to do with our own bodies or what to put in them. Homeschoolers and small businesses must obtain from the state recurring permission to carry on the most harmless of activities. Unelected judges force our elected representatives to increase taxes so they may subsidize inefficient government schools. The latter userpation looses upon the people a new form of an old evil: Taxation without representation.
We have long way to go before we would qualify for membership in a league of free nations. What a distressing thing it is to know that it's even worse in most other places, thanks in part to the current United Nations our own government so casually forces us to underwrite.
We'd like to see a lot of LTEs from constiuents about the F-s Reps in the NHLA's Interim Report Card... if any of your Reps got an F-minus, or even an F, please let your weekly (preferred) or daily paper know how unhappy you are they got an F...
Sent this to the Sentinel:
House Report Card
The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance has released their interim report card on New Hampshire representatives. Representatives were rated on how well they did respecting your rights and your pocketbook. If you would like more information on how representatives were rated, please visit http://nhliberty.org. Here are how Keene's representatives rated:
Rating Representative
F- Suzanne S. Butcher
F J Timothy Dunn
F Peter S. Espiefs
F Kris E. Roberts
F- Timothy N. Robertson
F- Charles F. Weed
Please vote for individuals who respect the Constitution and who believe a person's possessions/money are not public property for the taking.
Quote from: katdillon on April 22, 2005, 08:03 AM NHFT
Sent this to the Sentinel:
House Report Card
The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance has released their interim report card on New Hampshire representatives.? Representatives were rated on how well they did respecting your rights and your pocketbook.? If you would like more information on how representatives were rated, please visit http://nhliberty.org.? Here are how Keene's representatives rated:
Rating? ?Representative
F-? ? ?Suzanne S. Butcher?
F? ? ? ?J Timothy Dunn? ? ?
F? ? ? ?Peter S. Espiefs? ? ? ?
F? ? ? ?Kris E. Roberts? ? ? ? ?
F-? ? ?Timothy N. Robertson?
F-? ? ?Charles F. Weed? ?
Please vote for individuals who respect the Constitution and who believe a person's possessions/money are not public property for the taking.
Maybe you should send it to the offending Reps too. In fact I think they should have their report cards signed by their parents too for failing. >:D
We should kick them out.
Quote from: russellkanning on April 22, 2005, 08:43 AM NHFT
We should kick them out.
Indeed. Keene has some of the most spendthrift legislators in the State. Keene, although a beautiful place to settle, is not known to be conservative-land when it comes to spending. Thank goodness we have many activists in Keene who will speak up and try to do something about this.
My suggestion: Write letters-to-the-editor to as many local papers on the importance of turning these F's into A's or at least B's if they want to stay in office, and send a copy to the legislators personally, just in case the letter is not printed. You could write one letter to cover them all, but letters from several people explaining where you think they went wrong would be in order.
By the way, last night on radio I had an IM from Vancouver Washington from a FSPer who plans to move here in July. His question was, "Have the newcomers made a noticeable difference in things yet?"
Our answer was: "Absolutely, and we love and appreciate it!"
I did not make reference to the FSP, but said "Many liberty-minded individuals are moving to NH because they feel it is the best state to save from government clutches and we are so glad these new NH residents are here".
Quote from: GDouglas on April 22, 2005, 08:41 AM NHFT
Maybe you should send it to the offending Reps too. In fact I think they should have their report cards signed by their parents too for failing. >:D
LOL! It'll be nice when a failing grade means they don't get re-elected.
I was scanning over the list and noticed a couple of C grades, but those individuals only voted on a single bill. How do you get a C without participating in the other 9 votes?
Quote from: GDouglas on April 22, 2005, 09:25 AM NHFT
I was scanning over the list and noticed a couple of C grades, but those individuals only voted on a single bill. How do you get a C without participating in the other 9 votes?
IMHO, missed votes should be figured in as an F... and therefore bring down the whole score. In this case if they voted ONCE, even if they voted your way, they should get an F for non-participation and not graded based on that one vote, but heck, what do I know.
Beware the schoolmistress of the dark! She gives out F's with a firm hand! :)
Quote from: katdillon on April 22, 2005, 09:57 AM NHFT
Beware the schoolmistress of the dark!? She gives out F's with a firm hand!? ?:)
LOL! I am just as concerned about people we elected who never show up, as the ones who vote 'wrong'.
For example, one of the two new people we got in from Bedford has never missed a vote as well as voted correctly on each (Moe) but the other (Mark) has missed many votes, most likely because he has a full time job. People should be available if they are going to run for rep.
Quote from: GDouglas on April 22, 2005, 09:25 AM NHFT
I was scanning over the list and noticed a couple of C grades, but those individuals only voted on a single bill. How do you get a C without participating in the other 9 votes?
It was benefit of the doubt... combined with averaging.... For the Interim Report Card, only 10 bills were used... rest assured the 'final' Report Card will not give a C to someone who missed tons of votes.
Quote from: CNHT on April 22, 2005, 09:40 AM NHFT
Quote from: GDouglas on April 22, 2005, 09:25 AM NHFT
I was scanning over the list and noticed a couple of C grades, but those individuals only voted on a single bill. How do you get a C without participating in the other 9 votes?
IMHO, missed votes should be figured in as an F... and therefore bring down the whole score. In this case if they voted ONCE, even if they voted your way, they should get an F for non-participation and not graded based on that one vote, but heck, what do I know.
They were penalized, but with only 10 bills picked, we went with a weighting (raw score including missed votes counted as 'wrong'+ 2x just made votes all divided by 3) that rewarded those who missed just a vote or 2, punished those who missed lots of votes, but one of the minor side effects was the awarding of a few Cs to those who missed most of the votes (for good or bad).
Overall, the ratings are accurate, but I can tell you (and told the Reps themselves): some of this was the mix of bills... I know for a fact there were Reps who got D or Cs who are overall an A- or B, and even Reps who got Fs who are easily a C.... in the bigger picture.... but with a limited selection of bills used, attempting to give a balanced picture....
For those wondering why we didn't use more bills, or grade 'harsher'... at some point, you have to say "Why a report card?" if you are failing too many... As it is, we got criticism we failed too many... and should have done it lighter, AND got criticism we failed too few and should have done it harder... so I think we hit a good balance.... Including more bills, the top Reps floated high, and the rest sunk lower... (If we'd given 3 A's and 350 F's, who would care? This way, only about half the house got a F, and some got a true F- )
Quote from: CNHT on April 22, 2005, 10:13 AM NHFT
People should be available if they are going to run for rep.
Are you available to run in the Fall of 2006? Webmistress of the Dark for Rep!
Quote from: SethCohn on April 22, 2005, 11:05 AM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on April 22, 2005, 10:13 AM NHFT
People should be available if they are going to run for rep.
Are you available to run in the Fall of 2006?? Webmistress of the Dark for Rep!
LOL well yes! And it's been suggested I run before....however, I am not sure I would get elected since I have been a high profile activist in Bedford for a long time and much maligned by the 'schoolie' crowd. I would have to move and run elsewhere...
Moe was part of our group and was handily elected...however, some wrote bad things about him in the paper saying we should NOT 'rubber stamp' him just because he ran as a Republican, and consequently mounted a write-in campaign. She only got 800 votes though, so he won, even beating out our resident RINO, Michael 'scam-man' Scanlon, master retaliator and of Eminent Domain fame.
I guess I just don't understand they rating system. If you miss 90% of the votes I don't see how you get anything other than a F.
I am considering running in '06. Doug Scamman is in my district. I would love to knock him off. He has a lot of people around here who don't like him. I don't think he was the top vote getter, if I recall correctly.
Hey being known is half the battle Jane...the only other thing you have to do is promise to bring home the pork. ;D
Quote from: russellkanning on April 22, 2005, 12:53 PM NHFT
Hey being known is half the battle Jane...the only other thing you have to do is promise to bring home the pork. ;D
The only pork I'm promisin' to bring BACK home is the money that needs to be returned to the taxpayers.
And do not confuse Doug Scamman, his real name, with Michael Scanlon, Rep-R from Bedford who has EARNED the nickname 'SCAM-MAN'
He has never met a micro-management scheme he didn't like.
By the way, I had 13 Karma, twice, but someone must have hit the 'Smite' button and knocked it back down to 12. Perhaps they are a victim of triskaidekaphobia? <eg> I rather liked it.
There ya go.
Quote from: russellkanning on April 22, 2005, 12:53 PM NHFT
Hey being known is half the battle Jane...the only other thing you have to do is promise to bring home the pork. ;D
I'll bring the pork, if you bring the beans.
Quote from: AlanM on April 22, 2005, 09:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on April 22, 2005, 12:53 PM NHFT
Hey being known is half the battle Jane...the only other thing you have to do is promise to bring home the pork. ;D
I'll bring the pork, if you bring the beans.
I'll bring beer.Bottled I hate cans.
Quote from: Pat K on April 22, 2005, 09:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on April 22, 2005, 09:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on April 22, 2005, 12:53 PM NHFT
Hey being known is half the battle Jane...the only other thing you have to do is promise to bring home the pork. ;D
I'll bring the pork, if you bring the beans.
I'll bring beer.Bottled I hate cans.
Sounds like we got ourselves a Porcupine Party. ;D
Yeah I can cook too, but don't tell anybody! :-X
Seth thanks, I think you're on the right track and should get support on this...with one reservation.
It's better to talk up good reps than talk down bad ones. Most reps suffer more from lack of name recognition than they ever would from being attacked. Better to talk up the good ones than talk down the bad ones, unless you're talking to a pro liberty crowd.
For instance here in Keene there are a lot of good things to say about Tom Eaton lately, although in his case he isn't on the report card with a rating. In most districts there are good reps to talk up...so you can hit two birds with one stone rather than one bird and one pet cat with one stone.
Very cool to see you cranking out LTEs again though Kat, well written. I[ll be the first to admit the most important thing is activity, not "perfect activity"
I'm also glad to see this cooperation between us rabid undergrounders and the more work-within-the-system NHLA folks! I hope we can do that more... btw Don and Rich from NHLA were on WGIR and did a great job thursday!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on April 23, 2005, 08:58 AM NHFT
Seth thanks, I think you're on the right track and should get support on this...with one reservation.
It's better to talk up good reps than talk down bad ones.
I agree... Should have made that clearer in my initial post: Bring up ALL of your Reps, good and bad... in your LTE... It perfectly fine to say "Hey, look what our Reps did (for good or bad).." Sadly, in some areas, it's all bad... or mostly bad.
Quote
btw Don and Rich from NHLA were on WGIR and did a great job thursday!
They were great... They'll (at least Rich) will be on Keene radio next week (Monday?), CNHT Radio on Thursday, and Belforti's show in Portsmouth the next Friday. Working on a few other media things too... Listen this Friday on Gardner's show, no idea what will happen yet...
I sent this to UL today:
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
In response to your April 21 article "Schools reverse 'need improvement' status:"
You mentioned the state's Board of Education and indicated that it is making rulings
regarding which school district meet the standards of No Child Left Behind.
I want to know: Why is the state actively participating in the enforcement of an
unconstitutional Federal mandate? How much does this enforcement "service"
cost our taxpayers?
Article 10 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people."
Where in the Constitution is education oversight delegated to Washington? And when
are New Hampshire's state-level representatives going to assert our right to be
free of such oversight?
Dave Mincin LTE for Laconia Citizen
Dear Editors at the Citizen:
Thanks for your opinion piece supporting state rep Neal Kurk's effort to close Medicaid
loopholes. As long as the state government is pretending to be a charity and dispensing
our tax dollars for the purpose, we might as well have someone watching the money
like a hawk. I'm not sure anyone is really up to that challenge; the system is
probably going to be riddled with abuse as long as it exists. But at least Kurk
(a Hillsborough Republican) is trying.
By the way, to my surprise, Kurk earned an "A" this month from the New
Hampshire Liberty Alliance in their 2005 Interim Legislator Report Card (nhliberty.org/research).
That means that he has consistently voted for smaller
government during the current session. Representative Kurk if you're reading this...thanks
Mincin LTE to Telegraph (I think this may have been an earlier draft and that the one he sent has minor changes)
With regard to the case of Tony Nader, the gentleman who successfully chased off
a would-be robber in Nashua with his handgun on April 25th...
It's great the police are apparently not giving Nader any trouble, great they arrived
on the scene so fast and also great that Nader wanted to shoot the robber. I understand
he withheld fire only to avoid risking the life of the person who was standing next
to him.
It's *not* so great that police are actively trying to talk us average folk out
of defending ourselves. I don't know if I would have the stones to risk death for
an opportunity to foil one bad guy, but Nader did and God bless him for it. I don't
see how his actions can help but deter crime. Everyone who hears about this is
hearing a reminder that criminals have a lot to fear here, a lot more than they
do in Mass.
If things had played out just a little differently, Nader could be dead; I realize
this. But if they had played out a little differently in the other direction, the
*criminal* would be dead, injured or jailed. That's an outcome which would have
prevented even more crime and protected more lives, and Nader was apparently willing
to risk the first to try and obtain the second. That's what good cops and soldiers
do. And people rightly revere them for it.
Defending your property is a risk you take with your own life that many others may
be protected. It's a public service. So our public servants shouldn't discourage
us from doing it.
I just sent this to the Citizen (Laconia)
Attorney General threatens arrest over manicure
For those of you who run small businesses and are fed up with the excessive regulation loosed upon you by state authorities, Monday May 9 is your opportunity to do something about it. At noon that day, Newmarket entrepreneur Mike Fisher will stand in front of the state Board of Barbering (2 Industrial Park Drive, Concord, NH) and defy one of the many unjust laws it enforces. Regardless of the legal risks, he will administer a manicure without a license.
Fisher's planned civil disobedience has already triggered an arrest threat by the attorney general's office, but Fisher is undeterred. His goal is to draw attention to the many "commerce-prevention regulations" that affect *all* businesses in New Hampshire.
However he needs your help. I urge you to do what I am doing. Attend the event and spread the word about it. No one will expect you to violate the law or risk arrest; we'll just be glad to have your company. We are also low on video cameras, so if you'd like to come videotape the event that would be of special value. For more details and a fuller explanation of Fisher's reasoning, just drop by NHfree.com. Let's roll!
and this version went to the keene sentinel:
Dear folks at the Sentinel: Here's a letter-to-editor for you; you may publish it if you like. Thanks much for the ones you've published in the past from me!
--
Attorney General threatens arrest over manicure
For those of you who run small businesses and are fed up with the excessive regulation loosed upon you by state authorities, Monday May 9 is your opportunity to do something about it. At noon that day, Newmarket entrepreneur Mike Fisher will stand in front of the state Board of Barbering (2 Industrial Park Drive, Concord, NH) and defy one of the many unjust laws it enforces. Regardless of the legal risks, he will administer a manicure without a license.
Fisher's planned civil disobedience has already triggered an arrest threat by the attorney general's office, but Fisher is undeterred. His goal is to draw attention to the many "commerce-prevention regulations" that affect *all* businesses in New Hampshire.
However he needs your help. I urge you to do what I am doing. Attend the event and spread the word about it. No one will expect you to violate the law or risk arrest; we'll just be glad to have your company. We are also low on video cameras, so if you'd like to come videotape the event that would be of special value. For more details and a fuller explanation of Fisher's reasoning, just drop by NHfree.com. Let's roll!
My LTE to TheSouthern.com (with thanks to lynn271 for the inspiration):
re: "Home-school mom charged with allowing truancy", Friday, April 29, 2005
To the Editor:
I understand that Illinois is one of the states where a home school is considered a private school, and private schools are not regulated by the state. Good for Illinois!
Still, "Williamson County State's Attorney Charles Garnati is taking a tougher stance with parents who fail to follow established curriculum guidelines when home schooling their children", according to an article in The Southern on April 29.
Mr. Garnati acknowledges, "Unfortunately, there is no law on the books that criminalizes improper home schooling." He thinks it is unfortunate; and yet, he is prosecuting a home-schooling mother for violating a non-existent law.
There is also no law on the books that criminalizes improper public schooling. Has every graduate of the Marion school district received a "proper" education? Is every high school graduate fully literate and prepared to begin freshman courses in college? If not, has Mr. Garnati served warrants at any area schools?
Thank you for this article. It illustrates why state control of education is a very bad thing. If you agree, please join us as we seek liberty in our lifetime: http://www.freestateproject.org.
Kevin Craig
xxx xxx xx
Nash, TX 75569
For verification, not for publication: 903-xxx-xxxx
good job kb!
One recommendation for the future...you may want to put something in the letter about moving to new hampshire for more freedom; most people are not going to come to the link but they may remember the idea of New Hampshire having more freedom.
Quote from: katdillon on April 22, 2005, 08:03 AM NHFT
Sent this to the Sentinel:
House Report Card
The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance has released their interim report card on New Hampshire representatives.? Representatives were rated on how well they did respecting your rights and your pocketbook.? If you would like more information on how representatives were rated, please visit http://nhliberty.org.? Here are how Keene's representatives rated:
Rating? ?Representative
F-? ? ?Suzanne S. Butcher?
F? ? ? ?J Timothy Dunn? ? ?
F? ? ? ?Peter S. Espiefs? ? ? ?
F? ? ? ?Kris E. Roberts? ? ? ? ?
F-? ? ?Timothy N. Robertson?
F-? ? ?Charles F. Weed? ?
Please vote for individuals who respect the Constitution and who believe a person's possessions/money are not public property for the taking.
Published today! Good job Kat. There was also one last week from Justin Somma regarding the minimum wage bill. Watch for one from Bill Campbell concerning the Winchester School Board.
"There is also no law on the books that criminalizes improper public schooling. Has every graduate of the Marion school district received a "proper" education? Is every high school graduate fully literate and prepared to begin freshman courses in college? If not, has Mr. Garnati served warrants at any area schools?"
Great point....when the homeschoolers start performing as badly as the public schoolers...they can get back with us. >:D
Listing of NH Newspapers online
http://www.nh.gov/nhnews/
Thanks GDouglas! That's very helpful.
Sending this to herld:
opinion@seacoastonline.com
Dear folks at the Herald:
Thanks much for your insightful coverage of the "outlaw manicurist." Mike Fisher has made his point well: In a free country, you should not need the government's permission to start a business.
Gandhi once said that in order to fight an unjust law through civil disobedience, you must first make the unjustness of the law *visible.* Fisher has accomplished that too. There's nothing more visible and ludicrous than three cops cuffing someone for doing something harmless, then taking him to a judge who sentences him to over 30 days in jail.
I hope every local and state representative will keep that image in mind when they consider whether to make something illegal. Are you ready to send armed men to cuff and imprison anyone who refuses to comply?
Thanks, Dave! :)
Can't remember who sent this or what paper they sent it to , but here is an LTE that went out from an undergrounder this week:
To the Editor, for publication:
Under New Hampshire law, to become a licensed manicurist requires 300 hours of coursework at a government-approved school, and passing a government-administered practical and written exam. Becoming a licensed barber or cosmetologist requires 1,500 hours of coursework and 3,000 hours of apprenticeship within 18 months.
Under FAA regulations to obtain a a Private Pilot license, 40 hours total flight time are required, or 35 hours if you go to an approved flight school. Twenty of those hours must be flown with an instructor. You must also pass the private pilot written exam, for which there is no minimum amount of classroom instruction - you can do it entirely through independent study.
Demanding 300 hours of classes to be licensed to trim & polish fingernails, or 1,500 hours to be licensed to trim hair or apply makeup; versus 40 hours plus enough study to pass an exam to fly an airplane.
Does this make sense to anyone except the Board of Cosmetology?
===
Msg. from Tim Myers:
---
FYI, sent to the Portsmouth Herald in response to their Wednesday editorial: http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/05112005/editoria/41681.htm
Your May 11th editorial "This licensing law is one we can live with" is poorly written and misses the point entirely.
Someone at The Herald must have really been incensed by Michael Fisher's peaceful act of civil disobedience. Actually, not someone but everyone on your Editorial Board, as the generous use of "we" throughout the hastily written editorial implies. Unfortunately, as is often the case, haste makes waste and this editorial is a complete waste of paper, ink, and your readers' time.
First, it looks like the result of a Jr. High School writing assignment. Were you worried that you would insult us or go over our heads if you actually did research on your own and cited factual evidence that would support your opinion? Did you opt for a string of one word sentences because bullet points would have been too obvious? Maybe next time you could use a USA Today-type bar chart indicating the percentage of laws that are good versus bad. As one reader aptly put it, it's a good thing you don't need a license to write an intelligible editorial because this wouldn't have made the cut.
Second, I believe the point of Michael Fisher's act was less about this particular law and more about the thousands of federal, state, and local laws like this that attempt to micromanage the minutia of our lives. Your writer doesn't see the forest for the trees. If The Herald had been covering Gandhi in the 1920s the editorial would have read "What's Wrong with English Clothes?"
You cite a procedure on how to clean a cut that the licensee is required to know. I'm sure this is a relief to the millions of parents across the country who have been cleaning cuts since their children were born. Shouldn't they be licensed too? The editorial goes on to say that we would expect most manicurists would follow these rules whether they are licensed or not, but it doesn't hurt to make sure. Yes, it does hurt. You and I, and everyone in the country spend billions of dollars, wait countless hours, and lose hundreds of lives each year because of excessive regulation. Regulation Magazine, which you can find at CATO.org is just one of the publications that brings this issue to light. This law, and many, many like it are unnecessary uses of the legislature's time and the public's money.
In this case, if someone would like to voluntarily get certified by an industry association, which they can proudly advertise in order to charge more and generate more business, then no one is stopping them. However, they should not be forced into this type of certification or licensing. If two consenting adults want to voluntarily enter into a business transaction, whether it be a manicure or otherwise, they should be free to do so without government intervention.
To paraphrase your editorial: Sometimes the government is heavy handed, sometimes it is an annoyance, and sometimes it can be downright dangerous. This is true, and the problem is that everyone's definition of these terms is different. This is why our country and state were founded on the principal of erring on the side of personal liberty. This is clearly outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your editorial board should read them sometime.
Tim Myles
Mike Lorrey LTE to Nashua Telegraph
---
Dear Editors at the Telegraph:
With regard to your coverage of Mike Fisher, the Newmarket man who chose arrest
over
submission to business licensing...I have some questions which I hope your reporters
will be able to answer as they continue to cover this story.
How often does the Board of Barbering send inspectors to the average licensed nail
salon to ensure safety? Do the inspectors call in advance when they check a business,
or do they execute the inspection unannounced?
Does the requirement for a manicuring license constitute a violation of New Hampshire
Constitution Article 83? It reads: "Free and fair competition in the trades
and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected
against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it."
Fisher received a 30 days suspended sentence plus one day in jail for performing
a $1.00 manicure without state permission and refusing to post bond.
Does this sentence constitute a violation of New Hampshire Constitution Article
18? It reads: "All penalties ought to be proportioned to the nature of the
offense."
Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 15, 2005, 09:39 AM NHFT
Mike Lorrey LTE to Nashua Telegraph
Tell Mike thanks for me! :)
I KNOW they're not going to publish something so long, but I sent this to the Foster's editorial staff:
Dear Fosters Editorial Staff,
Thank you for doing at least some research on one side of the licensing issue. The purpose of my event was to create debate because I believe these regulations are slowly encroaching upon the people without their knowledge or approval. To this extent, the event was wildly successful. It is unfortunate, however, that your staff did absolutely NO research on the opposite perspective, particularly the view that liberty should prevail in this matter. I do not believe your editorial staff was fair to the opposite perspective, especially with such a lengthy article.
I deeply appreciate all sides of this issue, and all arguments for and against licensing laws. I spent hours researching and training for the event. It's very disappointing how your editorial staff failed to realize that I researched all known nail conditions before my protest and could easily identify those conditions. This took a few hours of research. It's also disappointing that your journalists failed to notice that I refused to sell a manicure to one person at the event because he had a nail condition (peeling and splitting layers) that I identified.
Also, without ever interviewing me, you claimed "Fisher contended he had learned everything he needed to know about manicuring by surfing the Web for half an hour." This quote is a complete fabrication by your staff. Your professional journalists should have known better than to put their own words into someone's mouth. The "30 minutes" of research most papers refer to is only the time required for me to look up the sanitary manicure procedures.
It's funny how the cosmetology schools are half of the people pushing for these laws - they are the primary benefactor of such laws. In the meantime, entry-level workers and entrepreneurs are seriously hurt by these restrictions.
It's too bad that so few people understand how fragile small businesses really are, and how much damage is inflicted by these laws. If people knew that 95% of small businesses fail within the first 5 years, they would NEVER support such restrictions unless they wished to stifle their potential competition. Instead, people would depend on professional reputations and optional private sector certifications when making their buying decisions.
Caveat Emptor. Buyer Beware. Consumer Responsibility. It's wisdom as old as time. However, through paternalistic laws such as licensing, the government protects us from small evils at the expense of our rights and responsibilities. We refuse to oppose these laws and we wonder why so few people today have a strong sense of personal responsibility.
Gandhi helped inspire me to do this event. I fought against New Hampshire's tyrannical licensing restrictions by filing nails in violation of manicurist licensing laws. Gandhi fought against the British by boiling saltwater in violation of salt licensing laws. The parallels are clear. The principles are the same.
Thank you very much for covering the event and writing a lengthy editorial about the subject - that is exactly what I hoped for from as a result of this event, and I am very thankful for your coverage of this topic, positive or not. Hopefully from now on you will research more than one side of the issue before publishing an editorial.
Mike Fisher
Newmarket, NH
Jason Sorens sent this LTE to Foster's in response to their editorial:
Dear Editor, "Free State protest misses the mark" (Sunday, May 15) missed
the point. The point Mike Fisher was making with his civil disobedience
was not that manicurists do not need comprehensive training: they clearly
do, and that's the reason he restricted himself to the safe activities of
buffing and polishing. The point was that no one should be taken to jail
for providing a real service to a willing customer.
Licensing laws invariably restrict competition, driving up prices for consumers and
discriminating especially against the poor, who may have extensive
informal training but little formal education. A better system is private
certification, whereby businesses display their credentials and consumers
may choose to pay higher prices for highly-credentialed services or lower
prices for less-credentialed services. Dozens of professions already use
private certification, from microprocessor testing to midwifery.
Laws protecting consumers from fraud rightly exist, but licensing regulations
are wholly unnecessary.
In today's Sentinel:
Monday, May 16, 2005
Ever mindful government
To The Sentinel:
I?m sure glad officer Pearl arrested Mike Fisher for giving an illegal manicure on Monday in Concord. It?s good to see the proper use of handcuffs behind the back for such a criminal manicurist as Mr. Fisher. He is obviously a grave danger to the people around him.
I?ve heard about the bad things that can happen from a manicure given without a government license. I?m sure Mr. Fisher was oblivious to the prospect of a fungal infection and could not possibly have known anything about sanitary practice given his lack of government license. Ms. Dillon should have been stopped from endangering herself by paying a dollar for half of a manicure from a guy without a government license. Getting these unlicensed manicurists off the streets is exactly the kind of thing I wish New Hampshire police were doing more of.
I?m really glad other professionals have their government licenses, too. Without government licenses, they wouldn?t know what they?re doing at all. But since those professionals have government licenses, they all know what they?re doing for sure. I know without my government license I wouldn?t be safe at all.
We have government licenses for just about everything, and I couldn?t be more pleased. I know that having a government drivers license means I?m a safe driver. And my car is a safe car, too, thanks to its own government license. There are government licenses for doctors, pilots, electricians, barbers, teachers, businesses, alcohol peddlers, driveways, even signs. Aren?t all those government licenses great?
I just can?t imagine a world without government licenses. Can you?
VARRIN SWEARINGEN
Keene, NH
I can't imagine a world without sarcasm.
;D
Kevin
Quote from: katdillon on May 16, 2005, 12:36 PM NHFT
VARRIN SWEARINGEN
Great LTE! And I love your name! ;D
Hilarious!
woo hoo nice job varrin! I'm going to start calling you Varrin "andy rooney" Sweringen!
I wrote this for the Concord Monitor:
Dear folks at the Monitor:
In response to your coverage of New Hampshire's "outlaw manicurist" Mike
Fisher, who chose to perform an unlicensed manicure in front of the licensing board
office in Concord...
Mike has done his job...he has brought attention to the issue of state licensing
and forced us all to ask whether people should really have to get the government's permission before
starting a business. Now it is time for our elected representatives to do *their* job.
Business license requirements, at least the ones that hinder competition, violate Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which states: "Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it."
If you are in the House or Senate, I urge you bring forward
bills that will move us toward an elimination of licensing on at least some of the
100-plus industries which currently require it. New Hampshire de-licensed many
industries under the Sununu administration; no reason we can't de-license more.
One option would be a shutdown of funding for the Board of Barbering, since they
have just jailed a man who should instead get a medal for moral courage.
That's awesome Dave! Thanks! Also thank you VERY much for the thing I received in the mail today! :o :) :) :)
I also want to thank Alan for his letter to the editor. It was great!!! :)
Thanks Mike. You did the tough part. 8)
Dave Mincin LTE for Monitor
Dear folks at the Monitor:
Thanks much for the guest editorial you ran about "outlaw manicurist" Mike Fisher. It's always fun to see how freedom lovers you never heard of come flying out of the woodwork when someone takes a stand for liberty.
As you may know, Fisher's public defiance of the state's unconstitutional cosmetology laws is not an isolated act but rather the tip of a spear. It has thus far inspired two similar events which will be happening over the next four weeks. Though not targeting the same bureaucracy, each follow-up protest will defy an unjust law using the Gandhi model of nonviolent resistance...the same model that worked so well for Fisher.
The first of these two protests will be more serious, more risky and more controversial. Russell Kanning, a Keene accountant, will endeavor to board his June 11 commercial flight from Manchester to Philadelphia - without an I.D. If prevented from doing so, he will peacefully persist in his efforts to board until arrested. This is not going to win Russell many popularity contests at first, and he is likely to suffer. But the jovial 35-year-old has promised authorities he will not interfere with the operation of the airport and has already succeeded in his quest to open a new debate: Should people really have to have government "papers" before they are allowed to travel by commercial aircraft?
The second follow-up protest is expected to be around July 2 and is actually in Kentucky. Some Free Staters who live there heard about the manicure protest and decided to try something similar against liquor laws there. They will give free beer to an underage Iraq war vet - but not before informing the authorities where and when it will happen, so as to ensure they are arrested. I suspect these guys will be fun to have in New Hampshire when they get here...
What's the purpose of these demonstrations? To make visible the infringements upon our liberties and ensure that they are no longer suffered in silence. Gandhi said that is the first step to ensuring that someday they are not suffered at all.
Wow, Dave.? That's a great LTE!!!
...thinking you must not always write in riddles if you wrote this well?? ;)
I have an LTE prepped for the Union leader but haven't sent it yet; it's in another computer I won't be able to get to till Saturday.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on May 30, 2005, 09:14 PM NHFT
Wow, Dave.? That's a great LTE!!!
...thinking you must not always write in riddles if you wrote this well?? ;)
Thinking Dave has a ghost writer.
Cathleen
Quote from: cathleeninnh on May 31, 2005, 11:10 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on May 30, 2005, 09:14 PM NHFT
Wow, Dave.? That's a great LTE!!!
...thinking you must not always write in riddles if you wrote this well?? ;)
Thinking Dave has a ghost writer.
Cathleen
Are you saying Dave M isn't a good writer?....I have like all of his LTE's......that might cost you 2 hugs at the next meeting. ;D
Quote from: russellkanning on May 31, 2005, 12:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: cathleeninnh on May 31, 2005, 11:10 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on May 30, 2005, 09:14 PM NHFT
Wow, Dave.? That's a great LTE!!!
...thinking you must not always write in riddles if you wrote this well?? ;)
Thinking Dave has a ghost writer.
Cathleen
Are you saying Dave M isn't a good writer?....I have like all of his LTE's......that might cost you 2 hugs at the next meeting. ;D
Hell 12 cigarettes, six beers and a few hugs and Dave can hold forth in a manner to make Shakespeare cry tears of joy.
I'm sending this to the Union Leader
For Union Leader:
In your article regarding the new state law requiring people to register swim rafts
on N.H. lakes...there was only one part I was happy to hear...this part:
"Wachsmuth (president of a Wolfeboro diving shop) said he knows of people who
are aware but are not registering their rafts"
Hats off to the folks who are not not going along with this Nanny Law. As one of
our state reps once said, when you make an unnecessary law...you reduce respect
for the good laws. I don't like it any more than the next guy when people violate
laws that really protect people from violence or fraud. But folks who refuse to
accept nonsense laws like "raft regulation" aren't criminals, they're just good old fashioned
freedom lovers. I urge police to go easy on these "violators."
Kat's LTE on licensure is in today's NH Sunday News - 2nd on a full page of LTEs, page 16 of the Employment section.
(They don't print many from out-of-state, but on the same page is one by Anasazi James of Austin, Texas talking about NH being a free state.)
I sent this to Keene Sentinel today:
---
Thanks for your coverage of the anti-tax protest outside city hall on June 2. You guys better hang on to your photog Steve Hooper; he never seems to miss a good shot.
I don't claim to know all the details about our convoluted, book-long city budget, and I shouldn't have to. I know that whatever problems we may have do not result from "insufficient taxation" or "insufficient city spending."
It's a greedy disgrace to have money-grabbers in office who actually think we are not taxed enough and ought to be taxed more. To paraphrase Patrick Henry, it is the responsibility of every Keene-lover to help protect her city from its government.
By the way, were any city tax funds used to pay for the placement of that orange monstrosity on the traffic circle?
Kat can you post your lte here?
A bill to require licensing of shampoo assistants is making its rounds through the legislature. This bill highlights the true purpose of professional licensing, which is not to protect customers, but to reduce competition. To claim that the purpose of this bill is to protect us from a bad shampoo would be ludicrous. What adult does not know how to shampoo hair??
I for one, wish to claim full responsibility for my life. I don't want the nanny state protecting me from my choices, or limiting those choices. If I wish to hire a herbal expert to advise me about my health, that is my business. The state's licensing requirements adds costs to nearly every business transaction. I don't want to pay for it anymore. It's my money, and it's my responsibility to make safe choices for myself and for my family.
Licensure only gives a false sense of security. Otherwise why would there be all those malpractice lawsuits? When people have that false sense of security that the government has licensed an individual or business, they don't take the necessary steps to protect themselves. They don't use word of mouth or investigate the business in any way. It's time to end professional licensure.
Kat Dillon
88 Sparrow St.
Keene, NH 03431
603-357-2049
Quote from: katdillon on June 05, 2005, 03:26 PM NHFT
A bill to require licensing of shampoo assistants is making its rounds through the legislature.? This bill highlights the true purpose of professional licensing, which is not to protect customers, but to reduce competition.? To claim that the purpose of this bill is to protect us from a bad shampoo would be ludicrous.? What adult does not know how to shampoo hair???
I for one, wish to claim full responsibility for my life.? I don't want the nanny state protecting me from my choices, or limiting those choices.? If I wish to hire a herbal expert to advise me about my health, that is my business.? The state's licensing requirements adds costs to nearly every business transaction.? I don't want to pay for it anymore.? It's my money, and it's my responsibility to make safe choices for myself and for my family.
Licensure only gives a false sense of security.? Otherwise why would there be all those malpractice lawsuits?? When people have that false sense of security that the government has licensed an individual or business, they don't take the necessary steps to protect themselves.? They don't use word of mouth or investigate the business in any way.? It's time to end professional licensure.
Kat Dillon
Wow! I haven't seen the real issue of consumer responsibility approached so clearly before!
Thanks, Kat!
Perhaps we need to get in touch with these guys:
The Center for Consumer Freedom
Promoting Personal Responsibility and Protecting Consumer Choice
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
Quote from: president on June 05, 2005, 05:17 PM NHFT
The Center for Consumer Freedom, formerly known as the Guest Choice Network, is a nonprofit run by lobbyist Richard Berman through his for-profit public relations company, Berman & Co. It was started by Berman with a $600,000 ?donation" from Philip Morris.
Maybe you can get in on the corporate shill money? ?::)
On second thought, that would probably fit in with the Anarchocapitalist thang? :P
Oh no! Does Philip Morris think people should be free to choose to smoke? We can't let people be free!!! *GASP* :o
What would I do with corporate money anyways? I'd probably donate it to the LSF or use it for local community volunteer projects. I have no other use for it.
Man maybe I could get a grant from Sam Adams ;D They could just donate beer.
Hey....I really like the idea of teaming with Phillip Morris against the government...that would be fun.
Kat you could probably get even more mileage with an anti-licensure LTE if you mentioned Mike's protest in some form or fashion...
although the more I hear, the more i think practically the whole state has heard about the "outlaw manicurist..."
I sent that in way before Mike's thing.
From Rodinia:
To the editor:
In am responding to your editorial, "Buff and polish stunt proves need for health and safety regulations."
Forgive me, but exactly how was this proved?
If manicures are as dangerous as Ms. Dalton or Mr. Maziarz would have you believe, why sell any of the equipment or supplies to the general public? For that matter, we better stop teenage girls from giving themselves or their friends manicures at slumber parties or while chatting on the phone about clothes or boys.
The truth is it's just not that dangerous. Of course, there can be problems or complications. You can die using a boom box or hair dryer improperly. Things happen; that's life.
You're right. It's easy to argue that we're overregulated. It is also easy to make the "if we save only one life" (or limb from amputation) argument. It's a slippery slope. With this way of thinking, soon enough, we will all be required by law to wear helmets in our cars. This may sound extreme, but is there anyone out there who really thinks that requiring a license for a manicure would save more people from injury or harm than requiring helmets in cars? I doubt it.
My point is that we just can't regulate everything; it is absurd to try. Why not leave some of these decisions up to consumers? Maybe I just want a file and polish and I'm comfortable with using someone who hasn't gone to school. Shouldn't that be my choice to make? Why should I be forced to pay more because the state requires hundreds of hours of hands-on work, exams, license fees, etc. for a manicure. All these regulations drive the cost of living up.
"Manicurists are trained to identify skin and nail infections and symptoms of more serious conditions that manifest in the feet, such as diabetes and heart problems."
Are we to assume now that it is a responsibility of a manicurist to recognize and diagnose heart disease and diabetes? Please, what kind of argument is that? With statements like the above, the door is opened wide for lawsuits, driving the cost of doing business right up through the roof. Will manicurist's now need not only liability insurance, but malpractice insurance as well?
Let us not forget, this may have been a stunt, but a man spent two days in jail for accepting $1 in exchange for a buffing a lady's nails. If that doesn't make one question the increasing fragility of our freedom, I don't know what would.
Kelly Halldorson
Dover
From me to Fosters Daily Democrat
Dear folks at Fosters:
In response to Kelly Halldorson's letter to you, where she criticizes state manicuring laws...she makes some great points. A guy just spent two days in jail for buffing a woman's nails, when the real violators are those state reps in Concord who voted for the unconstitutional law he was breaking.
I urge our legislators to look up Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which they are all sworn to support. Then tell us why the Board of Barbering isn't a monopoly which tends to inhibits trade. And I urge the ones who take their oath seriously to bring forward or support any and all bills which would tend to attrit the powers of this tax-funded commerce-prevention outfit.
From me to Nashua Telegraph
With regard to Cal Thomas's article "China is America’s next ‘gathering threat’..."
Hmmm...It's certainly a possibility that China will threaten the U.S. in some form or fashion, in a sense they already have with that late-90s comment about nuking L.A. But I'm not impressed with all of the solutions Cal offers. Kicking out Chinese corporations? Initiating a more protectionist economy? Sounds like a prescription for more Federal government control of a smaller U.S. economy. I fear that more than China.
However there are some things the Feds could do which would spike the Chi-Comm coffee without inhibiting trade or growing the U.S. government.
1) Re-engage the Taiwanese. Offer closer ties and beefed-up weapon sales in exchange for a drastic loosening of Taiwan's restrictive firearms laws, or an immediate suspension of their enforcement. Taiwan should not be expecting the U.S. to help it fend off the Chinese if it is not allowing its own citizens to defend themselves against invasion and crime.
2) Re-task some of our State Department folks in China. Give them a mandate to embarrass the Chinese government by constantly meeting with its native opponents and staging Free-Stater-style publicity stunts around the communist nation. Replace the diplomats who aren't up to it. This type of thing worked in Romania in the 80s.
3) Establish closer ties with anti-Beijing regimes in the region, giving top preference to those with the least restrictive gun laws. Nothing will keep the Chinese military away quite so efficiently as an armed citizenry (it helped keep the Japanese Army out of Hawaii, right)?
4) *Maybe* one could use the bully pulpit of Federal office to encourage information warfare against the Chinese government by average Americans. Call upon patriotic geeks around the country to crack into official Chinese websites with messages of freedom and undermine their censorship of the Internet.
In these ways, and many others, perhaps we can help draw a ring around the Chinese *military* without additional taxpayer expense, without economic losses and hopefully to the benefit of average Chinese. I'm sure the ideas need refinement, and probably no one's listening anyway. But we need to think outside the box if we are to remain secure without bankrupting the taxpayer.
From me to Portsmouth Herald:
-----
Dear folks at the Herald:
With regard to the "Unidentified Flying Objector" Russell Kanning and his arrest at the Manchester Airport for refusing to comply with TSA regulations:
There are some interesting highlights about his case which haven't come up much in the press yet.
1) Whether you approve or don't approve of Kanning's precise approach, he has helped the public become aware of something hardly anyone knew before: It is possible to fly without I.D. if you are willing to submit to a secondary search. Kanning wasn't, but if you are then you can fly I.D.-free! If Russell had done his protest last year it would have saved me countless hours trying to procure a new I.D. for my grandmother who had lost hers but needed to travel. Hopefully his sacrifice will save many others this hassle in the future.
2) Kanning and his wife Kat had company during their drive to the airport...at least three FBI agents. I more or less confirmed this with one of the other FBI guys. Kat reports that she and Russell led the tailing agents on a couple quick detours just to mess with them...earning a grin from one of the drivers. It's an amusing anecdote, and the agents have remained friendly, but this doesn't seem to be a very efficient use of tax dollars. The Kanning home in Keene has also been under open surveillance off and on since Kanning announced his protest.
History doesn't look kindly on Hoover's waste of resources investigating peaceful activists in the 60s; it may frown a bit on this allocation as well.
3) There had been some concern among Kanning's supporters about making sure no travelers were delayed by his protest. I timed it out...Kanning was in his line for a little under 5 minutes before being hauled off; the other line (which remained open) reached a length of five persons but never more than that. As Kanning put it...Manchester airport is one of the best in the country but would be better without TSA!
4) Kanning didn't just have a complaint to make; he also has a couple of solutions in mind, solutions he believes in strongly enough to face arrest. These include allowing pilots to arm themselves and ending the practice of government bailouts for airlines who let terrorists seize their planes. Both of these goals would of course be realized by getting government *completely out* of aviation, and we'd all be safer for it. As one local pilot put it: "I am willing to bet my life on that proposition."
From me to Laconia Citizen...
Dear folks at the Citizen:
Regarding your article "N.H. denied No Child waiver..." here is my question: Why is our state government trying to jump through Federal government education hoops? Where in the U.S. Constitution is the FedGov authorized to oversee education? Do the D.C. bureaucrats know more about education than our local teachers do?
I would prefer our state officials spend their time helping New Hampshire opt *out* of Federal programs, especially the Federal Income Tax which funds sinkholes like "No Child Allowed to Shine." If we give them nothing then we won't have to worry about getting it back. State Rep Harriet Cady had a bill in '03 that was a step in this direction, but it didn't pass. I hope she gives it another try! In the meantime, hats off to the folks who are opting out of the income tax on their own initiative; where is the law that says we have to pay it?
Schools should not teach kids to verbally fellate flags, nor flag fetishism --
Below is a Letter to the Editor that was sent to newspapers, teachers, students, school boards and schools all over the USA asking that the national flag be removed from schools on Flag Day (June 14th). Please pass it on and feel free to use it as a letter to the editor.
Dear teachers, schools, and School Boards:
Flag Day (6-14) is a good day to remove the flag from schools. Please help, and also educate students about these new historical discoveries:
1. The original Pledge of Allegiance to the USA's flag used a straight-armed salute and it was the source of the salute of the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). The gesture was not an ancient Roman salute.
2. The Pledge began with a military salute that then extended outward toward the flag. Due to the way that Francis Bellamy (the Pledge's creator) used the gestures, the military salute led to the Nazi salute.
3. Bellamy was a self-proclaimed socialist in the nationalism movement and his dogma influenced socialists in Germany, and his pledge was the origin of their salute. Many people forget that "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party." A mnemonic device is the swastika (Hakenkreuz in German). Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, it was also used sometimes to represent "S" letters joined for "socialism" under the German National Socialists.
How the discoveries were made is a fascinating story in itself. I made the discoveries by accident during legal research involving litigation about the pledge. As a libertarian lawyer, and the USA?s favorite flagologist, I do pro bono work educating students and others about the right to reject the ritualism.
Fight the flag hags and their flag fetish. Government's schools should not teach kids to verbally fellate flags each morning. It is like a brainwashed cult of the omnipotent state. For adults it is childish. Remove the pledge from the flag, remove flags from schools, remove schools from government.
The Bellamy dogma was the same dogma that led to the "Wholecaust" (of which the Holocaust was a part): 62 million killed under the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 35 million under the Peoples' Republic of China; 21 million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was so bad that Holocaust Museums could quadruple in size with Wholecaust Museums to document the entire slaughter.
In the USA, government took over education and imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. The USA's behavior was an example for three decades before the Nazis. As under Nazism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and blacks and the Jewish and others in the USA attended government schools that dictated segregation, taught racism, and persecuted children who refused to perform the straight-arm salute and robotically chant the pledge. Some kids were expelled from government schools and had to use the many better alternatives. There were acts of violence. When Jesse Owens competed in the 1936 Olympics in Germany, his neighbors attended segregated government schools where they saluted the flag with the Nazi salute. The U.S. practice of official racism even outlasted the horrid party. And the schools and the Pledge still exist. The Pledge is still the most visible sign of the USA's growing police state.
Some schools in the USA are still named after Francis Bellamy. The Bellamy schools should be re-named because they send the wrong message to children and the community. It causes emotional distress to children who attend schools named after a man who popularized the Nazi salute and who helped the government institutionalize racism and segregation. I, and my supporters, will also assist in any legal means to defray the cost of re-naming Bellamy schools.
Listen to a new talk-show appearance by RexCurry.net about the flag and the pledge http://rexcurry.net/rexcurry4.mp3
A more detailed version of the article above is at http://rexcurry.net/flag-day.html
Interesting. Have you compared/shared note on this with the JBS?
Thanks Rex! Welcome to NHfree.com!
Awesome Rex! I've gotten some real pissy looks from people for refusing to pledge to the flag.
Glad to have you here!
Quote from: katdillon on June 14, 2005, 09:38 AM NHFT
Awesome Rex!? I've gotten some real pissy looks from people for refusing to pledge to the flag.
Glad to have you here!
You should see the looks I get in large social business events when I refuse to pledge or even face the flag.? ?:o
EXCELLENT letter, RexCurry.net!
Dear folks at the Monitor:
Thanks for your column discussing the recent uptick in civil disobedience activity
by NHfree.com activists in-state. In regard to your assertion that they would
be better off working within the system, Thoreau had this to say:
"As for adopting the ways of the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone."
By the way, you point out that Thoreau was fighting slavery, the evil of his time.
Yes he was, and the NHfree.com folks are fighting excessive government, the evil
of *our* time. Agree with them or not, they are the ones taking action and putting
their freedoms on the line.
I saw this week:
Michael Pelletier (Merrimack) LTE to the UL was published (I think it was Tuesday) re. barbering - cops got cuts from unlicensed barbers . . . , at fundraiser . . . nice job MP.
MP also has the first LTE on the Opininion Page of today's New Hampshire Sunday News (UL) re. "nanny-state" speed limits on lakes.? Again, very nice!
For those who may not know, the Union Leader is so interested in readers points of veiw that they continue to publish them into the Employment section on Sunday (2 full pages).
On page 4 there, today, we find (above the fold) one by Dave Ridley re. swim raft law.
Jane Aitken (Bedford) barbering/police/charity LTE on Opinion page of today's Union Leader.
Great Dave Mincin (Dover) LTE on Opinion Page of the Union Leader today re. Kat's tax protest at 10:00 a.m. on June 30. . . .
Includes "NHfree.com activist", an invitation to all, and a contact # for more info and directions.
Dave Mincin LTE which appeared in Union Leader around the 21st:
Response your "Great Shell Game" editorial
I'm glad many members of the state legislature are patiently trying to end the statewide
property tax. I assume it is difficult to work within the government-bloating
dictates of the state Supreme Court as they are doing.
Fortunately, some average New Hampshire residents are not as enthralled with Supreme
Court edicts as our legislators seem to be. One of them, 38-year-old Kat Dillon
of Keene, has taken matters into her own hands. At 10 a.m. On June 30, one day
before Property Tax Deadline, the NHfree.com activist will show up at Keene City
Hall to deliver a check for only 42% of what the city says she owes. She will refuse
to pay the part that would have gone to the statewide property tax *and* the local
school tax, in protest against the very idea that a government school system may
take her money by force.
Agree with her or not, she is taking action while most just talk. Not some complicated
group effort to make property taxes slightly less unbearable or judicial power grabs
less expensive. Just a peaceful act of open defiance which either will or will
not be repeated by others. Consider your reporters and readers invited; if you
need directions or more information call Dave at 721-1490.
June 22nd Concord Monitor
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050622/REPOSITORY/506220323/1029/OPINION03
Evil of our time, DAVE RIDLEY, Keene - Letter
June 22. 2005 8:00AM
hanks for your column discussing the recent uptick in civil disobedience activity by NHfree.com activists in-state. In regard to your assertion that they would be better off working within the system, Thoreau had this to say:
"As for adopting the ways of the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone."
By the way, you point out that Thoreau was fighting slavery, the evil of his time. Yes he was, and the NHfree.com folks are fighting excessive government, the evil of our time. Agree with them or not, they are the ones taking action and putting their freedoms on the line.
DAVE RIDLEY
Keene
I sent this to the Union Leader today:
This is exclusive to the Leader and you have permission to run it if you wish.
----
Civil disobedience spreading
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
Over the last six weeks, limited-government activists in New Hampshire have put their own freedoms on the line in defiance against ever-expanding government control of our lives.
First it was "Outlaw Manicurist" Mike Fisher and his civil disobedience against the state licensing board. Then it was "Unidentified Flying Objector" Russell Kanning, who peacefully defied TSA regulations at Manchester Airport. There is also a planned defiance of liquor laws...two Free Staters in Kentucky will serve beer to an underage Iraq war vet.
And now there is a new refusenik stepping forward: Kat Dillon of Keene. She will appear at Keene's city hall on June 30 and defy what is perhaps the most hated tax
in the state. She will present property tax collectors with a check for only 42% of what they say she owes, refusing to pay the 58% which would have
gone toward government schools. She expects retaliation which may last for years. But she's no longer interested in being forced to fund a system she disagrees with and does not use.
Agree with their methods or not, these individuals are risking their liberty and property that all of us might one day have more of both.
From me to Union Leader
Thanks for your coverage on the arrest of Robert Saulnier for daring to enter his
own property after the Londonderry bureaucrats decided they own it. I don't know
enough about him to know if he is an out-and-out hero or not, but it's great that
someone is standing up to the out-of-control taxes and acts of confiscation that
local petty tyrants are forcing on New Hampshirites in almost every city now.
Although in his case I understand he was initially trying to comply with the law,
and they tore his house down anyway.
The root of this evil is what it always has been...greedy government. Their confiscation
of wealth has got to stop. They force people to pay excessive property taxes, most
of it going to school districts that spend 8 or 10 grand per student to miseducate
the next generation. Private schools cost more like 3 grand per student, by the
way.
If people have to "break into" their own property to make the point, then
more power to them. By the way, I see Saulnier has a website that shows pictures
of the city's attack on his property: londonderrydidthis.com
Not a LTE exactly, but...
In today's Seacoast Scene, complete with errors :)
Ron Helwig, formerly of Michigan (sic), said: "Admittedly, I'm new here -- actually, a couple of months (from Minnesota); and, what I'm seeing, as to how the government is working here, is worse than most of the despotic city councils from overly socialistic Minnesota. It seems like Hampton Beach is being treated like the colonies were in that Hampton Beach is being overtaxed; and, yet, we're not enjoying the benefits that are accruing to the town. They are ignoring the citizens; and, it appears that secession is as viable a strategy now as it was for our founding fathers."
Cool RH... What was the context in which your quote got in?
RH and Otis got hooked up with some "Aliens" in Hampton. Wild sightings, conspiracies and hidden agendas reported everywhere in the press. Watch for the Wire which got released yesterday.
Still in shock from tragic drownings here Monday evening. Nature or mother earth herself is not good or evil. The strength and will of men and women to survive and help each other survive in freedom is devine. God bless the two men who perished helping save a son. 11 other people went in to save that boy and got in trouble. A lifeguard saved three including the boy on his own. 9 lifeguards were in the water for over an hour trying to find the last person---knowing full well they were recovering a body. New Hampshire is a pretty special place. Most people are not afraid to get involved----even placing themselves in danger---to help someone in need of rescue.
Sorry to hear the news from the coast! I had heard that riptides have been particularly strong lately . . . there have been numerous rescues . . . This all has me seriously reconsidering canceling a solo swim (possiblly at odd hours - which is always against recomendations) as RIPTIDES CAN OVERTAKE EVEN STRONG SWIMMERS! . . .
http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=57297&archive=1
Anyway, the Dave Ridley (Keene) londonderrydidthis.com LTE is on the Opinion page of the UL today.
Quote from: John on July 07, 2005, 03:01 PM NHFT
Sorry to hear the news from the coast!? I had heard that riptides have been particularly strong lately . . . there have been numerous rescues . . . This all has me seriously reconsidering canceling a solo swim (possiblly at odd hours - which is always against recomendations) as RIPTIDES CAN OVERTAKE EVEN STRONG SWIMMERS!? . . .
http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=57297&archive=1
If you get caught in a rip tide DO NOT swim against the current. Most rip tides are somewhat narrow and pull people out to sea. If you get caugt swim perpendicular to the current. Swimming aginst the current rapidly tires even a strong smimmer. Once you swam across and out of the current it is much easier to get back to shore.
GT, thanks for the reminder on technique! It has been a while since I swam with a riptide (and/or undertow). I love to play in/with nature - but I have no death wish.
I'll be more reasonable for a while.
AGAIN THANKS.
Sent this to telegraph today
Dear folks at the Telegraph:
Thanks for your great coverage of the local reaction to the USSC Kelo vs. New London decision, where liberal judges endorsed the idea of cities taking people's homes and giving them to big corporations.? Here's some more local reaction for you:
At 1 p.m. on Sunday, July 17, demonstrators from NHfree.com will appear at or near Supreme Court Justice David Souter's home at 34 Cilley Hill Road in Weare.? Souter voted to support these land grabs, and we're going to do what we can to make our displeasure known.? Our purpose is to support the efforts of Free Stater Logan Clements, who wants to turn the tables on Souter by building a hotel on his property.
Clement's efforts could take years, but in the meantime there's no reason why we average New Hampshire folk can't do our part to make the judge feel uneasy.? ?Speaking for myself, I don't literally want to see a hotel in that spot, but it is good to see Free Staters like Clements taking innovative steps against bad government.? This is what we can do to help him.
Nervous officials wishing to verify the peaceful intent of this protest are invited to call me at 603.721.1490.? Patriotic folk wishing to attend can find out more at NHfree.com or just give me a ring at the same number. See you at Souter's!
Dave Mincin LTE to Union Leader
Dear readers of the Union Leader:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter lives at 34 Cilley Hill Rd. in Weare, N.H.
Why do you need to know this?? Because that's where you'll be Sunday, July
17 at 1:00 p.m, those of you who want to take a stand against his decision to reduce
your property rights.
Ultimately, you could say there is - or was - an unspoken contract between the people
and their government.? You don't show up at our homes with bulldozers, and we won't
show up at yours with signs.? This month, in the already infamous Kelo vs. New London
decision, the court broke that contract, with David Souter's support.? He
voted with the majority, not merely to allow but to *support* vicious land grabs
against homeowners.
It's beyond our poor power to counter every evil this man has loosed upon us.? But
we *can* rally outside his home to support the efforts of Free Stater Logan Clements,
who has turned the tables on this robed tyrant by asking the city of Weare to let
him build a hotel there.? ?For protest details, visit NHfree.com or call Dave Ridley
at 603.721.1490.? Nervous officials seeking to verify the peaceful
nature of this protest are welcome to do the same.
LTE from me to Keene Sentinel
While the Keene city government works toward a massive tax increase, there is one piece of good "money news" to report.
Management at Keene's Wal-Mart has decided to begin accepting Liberty Dollars as payment.? ?For those who are not yet aware, the Liberty Dollar is a private, silver-backed currency distributed nationally by NORFED and designed to enhance the economies of cities in which it circulates.? ? Basically, it is a one-ounce silver piece with a face value of $10.? ?Unlike the fiat currency in your wallet, it tends to go up in value against the greenback and gives you some of the same powers that our Federal Reserve used to "reserve" for itself.
It only took about 10 minutes for Wal-Mart folks to make this cool decision, and believe you me I rewarded them with a silver shopping spree!? ?I'll be back many times.? Special thanks to Correy (Wal-Mart manager) and also to Angela at the service desk.? Mention them if the cashier doesn't know whether to take the silver.
Other stores in town who have accepted Liberty Dollars from me include City Tire and Cheshire Village Pizza.? ?Thanks, all of you!
Liberty Dollars are good for Keene because they tend to circulate locally and because they have intrinsic value.? Those who are really serious about them can do what the Federal Reserve does with greenbacks:? buy them in bulk at a slight discount and spend them at a slight profit.? They increase your net buying power, and they soar in value when there is an economic or monetary crisis.? ?
So, if you already own Liberty Dollars, I urge you to reward the stores above by spending them there.? If you want to *start* using Liberty Dollars, just visit www.norfed.org or call them at 800.NEW.DOLLAR.? ?A random net search should give you independent background information you need to decide whether you can trust this currency as I do.? ?I certainly trust it more than the Federal dollar, which has lost 98% of its value since the Federal Reserve was founded!
LTE from Dave Mincin 2 Concord Monitor
In response to Dan Barrick's article "Stephen's agency cutbacks cleared:"
I'm glad to see that the legislature and Mr. Stephen are refusing to let Governor
Lynch stymie their efforts to control spending. God knows there are too few areas
where
spending is going down. Attempts like this to keep the size of government under
control tend to bring angry bureaucrats out of the woodwork, but if this really
will save money *do it.* Too many in Concord seem to forget where the money comes
from
and that it is not theirs to spend.
from me to Laconia Citizen
Dear folks at the Citizen:
With regard to your editorial on the U.S. district court judge trying to jail N.Y. Times reporter Judith Miller...yes you're right; the judge (a man sworn to uphold the Constitution) is violating its First Amendment and attempting to limit freedom of the press.
But I'd go a step further. I'd say actions like this (and a thousand others taken every day) should make us all re-think our attitude toward the Federal government in general - and towards those who, like Judith Miller, peacefully refuse to do what it says. In particular, they should make us think twice about whether it is right to condemn income tax evaders...who are, after all, the only Americans who are not funding this power play against Ms. Miller. Not everyone is in a position to refuse payment of their federal taxes. But those who are, and who chose to do so, should at least have our respect and support as New Hampshire citizens.
The Federal government is not wholly evil, nor is it necessarily made up of evil people. But their well-intentioned actions - from squatting on reporters to meddling in local education, from endorsing vicious land grabs by cities to restricting firearms...these actions violate the Constitution. They damage the economy, the exchange of ideas, probably even the level of safety we enjoy, for safety does not derive from security bureaucracies...it comes from freedom and wealth.
Taken as a whole, FedGov behavior harms more people than Al-Qaeda terrormongers could ever dream of doing. So I appreciate those who are not allowing themselves to be a part of it, so should Judith Miller and so, I hope, will you.
In yesterday's Sentinel:
Powerful story provides important wake-up call
To The Sentinel:
The story of the unfortunate alcohol-related accident of Kate Bishop and Keith Anderson may well be the first lengthy multi-part newspaper story I?ve ever read in its entirety in my life.
Kudos to The Sentinel for printing it and to Yankee Magazine for publishing it and allowing reprinting.
That story, and others like it, will do more good than all the laws in the world. It?s illegal in all 50 states to drive under the influence of alcohol. It?s illegal in Maine to ride in a car without a seat belt.
Despite those laws, both acts happened that night and the results were disastrous.
Legislators think they?re ?solving? safety problems when they pass laws, and many voters seem convinced that more laws are the answer. Obviously that?s not the case, as those laws did not prevent Kate and Keith from making their dangerous decisions.
There may not be a single, 100 percent effective solution, but education is infinitely more effective than yet another law. The story of Kate and Keith should be a wake-up call to all of us as to the potential serious, permanent consequences of driving intoxicated and not wearing a seat belt (something not required for adults by N.H. law). In one good story, The Sentinel has provided powerful persuasion, without any government intervention at all.
Thank you for spreading the word. We?re all well advised to listen and learn. Our freedom and our very lives depend on it.
VARRIN SWEARINGEN
Keene
From me to a Mass. Paper...
This is an LTE for the Hudson Sun/Town Online, which you may publish if you wish:
With regard to Governor Romney's June 30 editorial in the Hudson Sun, where he advocates forcing Mass. residents to get health insurance:
I shouldn't judge what is right and wrong for Mass. since I'm a citizen of New Hampshire. But I will say this: If you are fed up with Beacon Hill attempts to run your life, Romney's scheme is your cue to escape. Just get out. Freedom is only a few dozen miles to the north.
As an N.H. resident you could still work in Mass. (as I do) but be free of this authoritarian intrusion into your personal life. You would also have much lower overall living expenses (for instance, bananas are 25% cheaper in Nashua than Dedham; an hour of work on a Kinko's computer is 30% cheaper, car insurance is cheaper and not required here).
For God's sake they are talking about taxing the water and banning children from grocery carts down there...whether it's wrong or not, how much more of it can you take if you are not a raving authoritarian?
Drop by FreeStateProject.org if you want to network with others who are making the move...then get yourself up here! If you're a freedom lover perhaps you no longer belong in Draconia; perhaps you belong with us.
From me to Union Leader
Regarding your editorial "We must recognize Islamist enemy..." You're not wrong. But the nation has another enemy we must recognize...one which, despite its intermittent good intentions, is doing far more damage to her than Islamists ever have.
This enemy prevented Cantor Fitzgerald - a company whose workers were slaughtered on September 11th - from raising a private army to go after Al-Queida. It gave forcibly obtained moneys to American Airlines, rewarding the surly carrier for its failure to protect passengers that day. It prevented and continues to prevent most pilots from arming themselves and discourages private volunteers from guarding our borders. It responds to seemingly every challenge by adding a new layer of bureaucracy and wasteful spending, then forces you to pick up the tab. If you resist payment, it may seize some of your assets. If you do not resist, it *will* seize some of your income.
Though benign compared to terrorists, the Federal government, by sheer unconstitutional size and incompetence, puts them to shame in its practiced ability to lessen our lives, liberties and hopes for safety. Until we the people defeat it, place it back into its Constitutional bottle, we fight all external foes at the most serious disadvantage.
QuoteThis enemy prevented Cantor Fitzgerald
Question. Did this company actually try to hier paid mercinaries and soldiers and security guys and stuff to try to do that?
Tracy
Here's a letter one of our guys is sending to the Citizen
Dear editors at the Citizen:
With regard to your article on the U. S. district court judge trying to jail N.Y. Times reporter Judith Miller...I agree.? The judge (a man sworn to uphold the Constitution) is violating its First Amendment and attempting to limit freedom of the press.
But I'd go a step further.? I'd say actions like this (and a thousand others taken every day) should make us all re-think our attitude toward the Federal government in general - and towards those who, like Judith Miller, peacefully refuse to do what it says.? In particular, they should make us think twice about whether it is right to condemn income tax evaders...who are, after all, the only Americans who are not funding this power play against Ms. Miller.? ?Not everyone is in a position to refuse payment of their federal taxes.? But those who are, and who chose to do so, should at least have our respect and support.
The Federal government is not wholly evil, nor is necessarily it made up of evil people.? But their well-intentioned actions - from squatting on reporters to meddling in local education, from endorsing vicious land grabs by cities to restricting firearms...these actions violate the Constitution.? They damage the economy, the exchange of ideas, probably even the level of safety we enjoy, for safety does not derive from security bureaucracies...but from freedom and wealth.
Taken as a whole, FedGov behavior harms more Americans than Al-Queida terrormongers could ever dream of doing.? ?So I appreciate those who are not allowing themselves to be a part of it.
Quote from: tracysaboe on July 26, 2005, 01:29 PM NHFT
QuoteThis enemy prevented Cantor Fitzgerald
Question. Did this company actually try to hier paid mercinaries and soldiers and security guys and stuff to try to do that?
Tracy
I doubt it. My buddy worked there. ( he was golfing on Sept 11, 2001). He said that CF tried to screw all the spouses out of insurance.
OK, so . . . I guess I really don't understand the reference in the article.
I mean, she's right. But most people, it's going to go over their heads.
Tracy
Quote from: tracysaboe on July 26, 2005, 10:51 PM NHFT
OK, so . . . I guess I really don't understand the reference in the article.
I mean, she's right. But most people, it's going to go over their heads.
To sum up: Yes, U.S. law prevents Cantor-Fitzgerald (or anyone else) from forming their own private army to deal with domestic threats. It doesn't (and can't) prevent C-F (or anyone else) from going overseas for retaliation. (cf: Ross Perot and his EDS army, rescuing hostage from Tehran as described in Ken Follet's "On Wings of Eagles".)
Kevin
From me to Portsmouth Herald:
Dear folks at the Herald:
In response to your July 19 editorial on plea bargaining...You're right!? Violence-initiating
offenders need to receive harsher penalties.
But you haven't suggested a means to accomplish this without more spending and taxation.
So here is one, in which police can play a key, immediate role.
Our justice system is lenient on violent criminals partly because our jails are
filled with people who in many cases *aren't* violent, who have initiated neither
force nor fraud against anyone.? I'm talking about drug offenders, at least some
of them.
To make room for action against violent thugs we must stop jailing nonviolent people
for drug law violations which.? Otherwise there will never be room in our prisons
for all the child abusers, wife beaters and thieves who really need to be there.
If we do this, side benefits will include reduced spending, reduced drug prices
on the street (making the drug trade less profitable and less violent) plus reduced
intrusions of government into our homes and cars.?
We didn't have a national drug problem until we made drugs illegal.? And we won't
have room in our jails for all the violent and thieving criminals until we stop
arresting the "outlaws" who are neither.?
It could, of course, take forever for us to change New Hampshire's drug laws. So
I urge police in our state to use more discretion, more restraint in drug cases.
There are plenty of bad laws still on the books which you do not enforce because
you know they are wrong - Blue Laws, for example.? ?You can apply the same good
judgment to drug situations.? Please don't arrest people in the first place if their
only offense is drug possession and your instincts and evidence tell you they are
not a threat.? ?Arresting them frees violent offenders!? ?It is wrong!?
From me...
Dear folks at the Hudson-Litchfield News:
I wanted to let you know I really enjoyed your July 22 Legislative Update by state rep Ralph Boehm. I love his idea that we need to repeal laws rather than make new ones. We have too many laws! And yes, how did we make it for 220+ years without the ones they passed this year?
Since one of Boehm's key gripes is the child helmet law; I will try to contact him and see if he would be willing to sponsor a bill repealing it. And I'm ready to help, as are many of the 200 activists at NHfree.com
I realize we have more liberties here than most places, but it is the parents' job to make decisions regarding bike helmets, not the state's. If we have forgotten that, we might as well just hand our kids over to a Bureau and die, since we obviously aren't living free.
(publication verified)
From me to the Maryland Independent
Dear folks at the Independent:
Regarding Lawrence Fox, the La Plata man arrested for alleged weapon and drug violations, and for allegedly having explosive materials...I'm in the "anti-government" group Fox received correspondence from.? There are around 7,000 of us, known as Free Staters (FreeStateProject.org).? We try to attract liberty-lovers away from authoritarian states like Maryland and into "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire.? About 130 of us have made the move so far and are helping to downzise the already small government here.? But we're not precisely anti-government, since our official supporter list includes includes one former New Hampshire governor and some state reps.?
Regarding Fox himself, I understand he attended at least one meeting of the Free State Project's Mid-Atlantic group but don't know enough about him to judge the situation.? I *do* have some questions:
Is Fox is a danger to society?? If so, why was he immediately released on his own recognizance?? If not, is it right to arrest him in the first place?? Is there any indication Fox caused or intended harm with the weaponry allegedly found in his residence?? Did the guns and "explosive" materials he allegedly had pose any inherent risk to neighbors or innocents?? Do the institutions arresting and prosecuting him have a history of exaggerating claims about weapons suspects or can they be relied upon for levelheadedness and fair treatment of all?? Regarding the alleged "meth lab" he had...is it true that until a few decades ago methamphetamines were routinely used for weight loss and even handed out by the U.S. military to wives of servicemen?? ?
The government organs in question may have great answers for these questions.? ?And there may be some danger in Fox of which I am unaware.? Certainly, it's illegal in Maryland to own many of the things he is accused of owning.? It's also illegal to do any number of things which are not a danger to others. That's why so many of the Mid-Atlantic Free Staters have already left your state and joined ours, where the government recognizes more of their rights.
If? this sounds crazy to you;? if you like living under the many controls exerted by Maryland's government(s)...no sweat.? We're not going to drag you to New Hampshire.? But if you chafe under your state's relative lack of freedom, you're invited to move here and join our enjoyable struggle for true liberty. Call me if you wish to learn more:
Good one!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on August 01, 2005, 10:05 AM NHFT
From me to the Maryland Independent
Dear folks at the Independent:
Regarding Lawrence Fox, the La Plata man arrested for alleged weapon and drug violations, and for allegedly having explosive materials...
From what I can tell he was only arrested for weapons violations, not for explosives or drug violations.
QuoteRegarding Fox himself, I understand he attended at least one meeting of the Free State Project's Mid-Atlantic group but don't know enough about him to judge the situation.
Do tell. How do you know he went to a mid-Atlantic group meeting? Was he a FSP participant?
from me to UL
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
On July 31, you published a guest editorial in which the writer argues that contractors should welcome licensing controls from the state. She is right in a perverse way. Established contractors, particularly those with shoddy service, benefit greatly from mandatory licensing. Licensing (often an expensive process) provides an artificial barrier to entry, snuffing out their potential competitors before they even have a chance to compete. This helps existing contractors charge artificially high prices and deliver an less effective product with reduced fear of customer loss. It reduces the number of businesses we customers may pick from. It also tends to undercut the private certification industry. And it is done by force in your name.
The only people who should have a problem with business licensing are the 95% of us who are customers, aspiring young entrepreneurs or just individuals who have an ethical problem with busybody government.
Bureaucrats and lazy entrenched contractors, on the other hand, will tend to favor it as a means to more effectively line their pockets.
Great Dave, thanks.
Lloyd
From me to Londonderry Times
--
Dear folks at the Times:
Thanks for your July 28 article regarding our small protest in support of Robert
"Salty" Saulnier on July 21st. I appreciated John Roberts' reasonably
accurate snapshot of the situation at the beginning of the little demonstration,
but here is some additional detail.
Our total turnout was actually six; two more NHfree.com folks showed up to support
Salty after John had to go into the meeting. Three out of the six were from Londonderry.
Though we had questions and concerns about both sides of this conflict, the central
question remains: Is it *ever* right for any town to evict someone from their land
for failing to pay taxes? When most tax dollars go not toward protecting us but
toward inefficient government schooling?
I think most of us came away feeling more sympathetic with Salty than we were before,
and if I'm able I will certainly be at his trial August 15 to support him in whatever
minor way I'm able. As a rule, when you take a man's property and then try to
put him in jail for "trespassing" on it, something is not right.
In another Londonderry Times article annoncing Saulnier trial date. The protest was reffered to again. I guess things change because the article stated there were only two protestors and described it as a failed protest.
I should add a discalimer for the Londonderry Lurkers. I don't have the paper in front of me and I am going on memory and not intentionally misrepresenting the facts or myself for some sneaky unethical means.
FINALLY!!! A letter I wrote to Foster's got published.....here is the story below the LTE
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050801/NEWS05/108010092
Let free enterprise decide, pay the bill
To the editor:
Regarding the Marcia Johnson story, the hot dog cart controversy in Rochester, here is an idea for you, Julie Brown and Tim Fontneau.
Why don't you let the taxpayers decide if the business is a good idea. For crying out loud, you have zero business manipulating business in this manner.
If you think you know what is best for the citizens, that is your first mistake and arrogance on a grand scale. If the business isn't meant to be, it will go out of business.
I am also sickly disgusted by the manipulation and economic planning of downtown Rochester.
You all think you are doing what is in the best interest of the citizens but, in fact, you are increasing the tax burden.
When you manipulate the free market, you will have to plunder the taxpayers even further to continue funding the government-manipulated downtown economy. Leave it the heck alone.
If people want to purchase property, let them do it. Keep your grubby, greedy fingers out of my pockets and don't think for a single second you know better than I do how to spend my money.
Suzanne Hudson
Rochester
Suzanne if you want to get published consistently (at least on state issues), concentrate on the Union Leader. You can get published there 2x a month and I think they almost never reject a letter.
good letter tho!
I just sent this to the Monitor:
(You can print this if you like)
Dear folks at the Monitor:
In your editorial "Scopes retried" you argue that creationism should not
be taught in New Hampshire's public school science classes. I take this to mean
you have a problem with secular taxpayers being forced to subsidize what they consider
inappropriate religious teaching. Good for you, but how about we ride your train
of thought all the way to the station?
If it is wrong to force evolutionist parents to fund creationist instruction, isn't
it equally wrong when we force creationist parents to fund evolution instruction?
Whether they are right or not, scientifically viable or not...is it really okay
for us to take their money and dump it into something they abhor? Is there a reason
why we can't let both creationists and evolutionists opt out of funding the one-size-fits-all
government school systems that try to cram them into the same room by force? Why
can't we let them keep their money and spend it on the education *they* choose for
their kids? Privately educating a child costs only about a third what it costs
when the government does it, and it doesn't involve *force* against taxpayers and
families with schoolkids.
One solution is for our school districts to hand the government schools over to
their teachers for free, let them own the institutions privately and teach whatever
they want to whoever wants to pay for it. But end the grievous practice of taxing
everyone for something that they don't all use, something which should be a business or charity.
Then families can decide which schools deserve the privilege of teaching their children,
be they creationist, evolutionist or whatever they want to be.
I'll send this to the Union Leader on 8/25 (can't send it yet because I just sent one a week ago).
OK it's sent , on aug. 29.
TSA move vindicates N.H. protester
Keene resident Russell Kanning didn't have unanimous support when he decided to
publicly disobey TSA rules at Manchester Airport in June. But his act of civil
disobedience - trying to board his flight without showing I.D., removing his shoes
or submitting to patdown - appears to have already been vindicated, by the very
institution he was defying.
This month TSA bosses announced a plan to ease restrictions on travelers, a plan
which - coincidentally or not - meets many of Kanning's demands. I don't know if
there is a connection between his peaceful defiance and the TSA's attempt at lightening
up, but I do know that his act definitely got the attention of authorities at the
time.
In any case, it is nice to see that the TSA is making at least a clumsy attempt
to...be less clumsy. I appreciate their being willing to eliminate some rules
instead of just adding them all the time.
Unfortunately most of our pilots remain unarmed thanks to Federal red tape. Our
planes are vulnerable in ways that they wouldn't be if the authorities would just
butt out and let the airlines and airports sink or swim based on the effectiveness
of their own policies. My suspicion is they'd learn to swim pretty fast without
Uncle Sam offering a lifejacket every time they let a plane get hijacked.
Will send this to the Telegraph as soon as their site is back up on my computer. Ok it's sent 8/20/05
---
Dear folks at the Telegraph:
With regard to your July 15 article about Henry McElroy's banishment from the jury trying William Sullivan in Nashua:
It's worth stressing that the key reason the judge took him off the case was his decision to bring a Black's Law Dictionary with him to court! I talked to Henry about this (did you?), and he says he wanted to look up the legal definition of "conspiracy," with which the defendant was charged.
Why would a judge, and why would the prosecutors, feel threatened by a juror having a copy of a book which they likely have dozens of copies of *in* that courthouse? God forbid we should have jurors who inform themselves of legal definitions. Henry tells me the judge was polite about this, and presumably there are some things a jury shouldn't know. But why the obsession with keeping jurors so uniformed about things they *do* need to know? Are jurors really there just to be spoon fed by the judge?
Jurors are supposed to be in the saddle to a much greater extent than this, perhaps to a greater extent than that judge. By law they even have the right to acquit anyone if they feel the law that person broke is unjust. Juries are the last line of defense against bad laws - of which there are now thousands. Keyword-search the Net for "jury nullification" if you don't believe me, but don't expect a judge to tell you about this. It's their nervously-kept secret.
Most judges I've come in contact with are kind toward and appreciative of their juries...but sadly they also seem hell-bent on neutering and dumbing them down.
Sent to NH Gazette
Dear folks at the Gazette:
In response to your article "Impeachment Now:" Okay; you are against the
present Republican-led government, no problem. I can't think of a Federal administration
in recent memory that *did* deserve much support. But let me ask you, or more
specifically those on the sidelines who agree with you:
If you are furious about the way your money is being spent by Mr. Bush, what
are you doing to help cut off the flow of money to him? Are you refusing to pay
your federal tax? Are you supporting in some way those who do? Are you spending
and/or accepting silver currency instead of Federal dollars (see LibertyDollar.org)?
Personally I am not doing *all* of these things; I wish I could and admire those
who do. But I am doing the ones I can, because as Patrick Henry said...it is the
duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government. I hope you and
your readers will do the same, as opposed to merely griping about the present administration.
We can fight the beast more effectively if we're not feeding it at the same time.
Dave Ridley
88 Sparrow St.
Keene, NH 03431
721 1490
Dear folks at Foster's:
Thanks for your your July 31 editorial criticizing John Edwards for his pandering in Maine last month. My criticisms are different from yours, though. Edwards doesn't so much deserve scorn because he panders or because his home state has a high poverty rate. He deserves it because of his authoritarian voting record. In the entire U.S. Congress, 535 souls, Edwards ranks 534th when it comes to defending you and me from the encroachments of government control.
The Republican Liberty Caucus (www.rlc.org) - an anti-Bush, anti-big-government think tank - has Edwards rated as 16.3% pro-freedom. When the Federals try to make decisions for you regarding what you can and can't do with your body, what you can and can't do with your money, Edwards backs them up 83.7% of the time.
Incidentally the U.S. legislator ranked as most pro-liberty this year is New Hampshire's own John Sununu, coming in just ahead of Ron Paul with an 89.5% pro-freedom voting record. Way to go, Senator!
a search of Nashua telegraph archives enabled me to locate only 2 of the many LTE's I've sent to them.... I'm wondering if maybe the others didn't publish.
I'm trying to get a better feel for which papers publish reliably my stuff and which ones don't so I can share tips...
From me to the Monadnock Ledger
Dear folks at the Ledger:
I enjoyed your article on Joshua Todd, the man who fought to separate religion from government
in Temple during the 18th century.
However there's no need to travel back in time to find towns forcing individuals
to pay for things that are against their principles. Nor do you need to open a
history book to find stories of people fighting back.
Just drive into Keene and look up Kat Dillon. In fighting government mis-spending,
she has taken an even firmer stand than Todd did in his time.
Kat is a member of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. Most every Saturday
morning for the last few months, she and her husband Russell have manned a booth near the
Keene Wal-Mart, sharing with the interested their view that to properly educate
our children we should privatize our schools. Kat believes in this so strongly
she is refusing to pay the government-school portion of her property tax...putting
her on a collision course with the authorities in Keene. Eventually they may come
for her house, but I doubt she'll back down.
It costs only two or three thousand dollars to privately educate a child, but public
education in Keene costs taxpayers between $8,000 and $12,000 per student! It is the #1 reason
why our taxes are out of control.
Taking people's money by force to fund this kind of waste is morally wrong, and
though our public schools have some good people working for them, they are not able
to deliver a result proportionate to the cost. How can they when they're hamstrung
by Federal rules and the countless other regulations that plague every government-sponsored
entity?
Government was a poison in our churches in times past, now it is a poison in our schools.
I'm glad there are individuals like Kat who are doing something about it.
:o
Amazing LTE, Dave!!! The quality of your LTEs is astounding! :o
Quote from: DadaOrwell on August 29, 2005, 08:02 PM NHFT
a search of Nashua telegraph archives enabled me to locate only 2 of the many LTE's I've sent to them.... I'm wondering if maybe the others didn't publish.
I'm trying to get a better feel for which papers publish reliably my stuff and which ones don't so I can share tips...
Not only does the New Hampshire Union Leader publish every LTE (wich follows their rules), but
they have sometimes placed yours in quite prominent positions --- possibly because of the quality of the letters, maybe because they agree, or perhaps it is just chance. 8)
Keep up the good work!
The Union Leader publishes more LTEs "than anyone we know." I don't have the latest numbers at hand, but the Union Leader has publishished allmost 2500 LTEs (so far) this year.
They publish FULL PAGES of LTEs. I'm not kidding; Full Pages (usualy on Sunday).
Make that 2801 as of 9/6/05.
I just wish they posted them in their on-line edition. :(
Kevin
I guess I don't fit the "libertarian" on line - pluged in - internet mold.
Hey, we're not all geeeks? ::)
When I moved here, I signed my lease, registered to vote, and subsribed to the Union Leader (I might be leaving a few things out? :o) .? :P 8) :o ;D :-X :-* ;) :)
The Union Leader is not (editorialy) perfect; but, tell me who is better.? I support the UL with my subscription.? AND, I ENJOY reading it EVERY day.
The Union Leader has (editorialy) supported the FSP since long-before supporting the FSP was even popular!
Quote from: John on September 07, 2005, 12:44 AM NHFT
The Union Leader is not (editorialy) perfect; but, tell me who is better.
I don't know if there's any better mainstream newspaper in NH, but I can tell you that the Berlin Daily Sun, the Concord Monitor, et al., lean strongly towards statist solutions.
The UL is sometimes too GOP for my tastes, but it's always an entertaining read.
Kevin
Yes. Sometimes a bit too GOP. Yet, They support the FSP.
Sometimes FSP folk are a bit too GOP for me also.
Now it is 4 O'clock and my paper should be arriving, I get to read an actual paper.
I still like "actual" papers.
Then again, as I said, I don't fit the "libertarian geek" mold.
:o 8) :P :-* :P ;D :D ;) :)
WHAT, we're not all that way? ;D
Kevin,
Just to show you how bad I suck... I will be shopping around to see which paper I get delivered to my house. :)
Quote from: Dreepa on September 07, 2005, 07:14 AM NHFT
Kevin,
Just to show you how bad I suck... I will be shopping around to see which paper I get delivered to my house. :)
Don't make me come up there![/b] >:( >:( >:(
oh... wait...
;D
Dear folks at seacoastonline.com:
This is an LTE for both the Hampton Union and the Portsmouth Herald if you wish to print. Thanks!
---
Dear editors:
Lest ye ever doubt that your reporters have an impact on people's lives...I thought you'd like to know that seven months after you published the story about
Hampton's out-of-control building inspector, your article continues to reverberate.
Recapping quickly...Hampton town bureaucrat Kevin Schultz has been persecuting 96-year-old Myrtle Woodward and her family all year for alleged minor zoning violations *inside* a rec room at their beautiful home. Among other things, Woodward stands accused of harboring an illegal sink! But she has been fighting back, refusing to demolish the room in question or pay the $200,000 fine which town tyrants are trying to charge her family.
This week Myrtle learned that - tucked in between many lines of incomprehensible bureaucratspeak - is a passage in the town docket which gives Schultz authority to enter her house at any time. To protest this attempted Fourth Amendment violation and show continued support for Myrtle...activists from NHfree.com will rally outside Hampton Town Hall from 6 to 8PM on Monday, September 19. That is the night when selectmen meet.
Your readers are invited to attend, to help us put the "Free" back in "Live Free or Die." For details on this demonstration, visit NHfree.com or call me on my cell phone: (number). See you there!
Great work, Dave! :)
Thanks mike!
To monitor:
Dear folks at the Monitor:
This is an LTE; feel free to publish if you wish...or drop by on the 21st. Many thanks.
----
Concord Demonstrators to burn FEMA Flag
Dear readers:
If you are furious regarding the disarmament and forced removal of New Orleans residents from their homes this month, if you feel your tax money has been wasted and misused by FEMA, Wednesday September 21 is your chance to do something about it.
From 6 until 8 p.m. that day, activists from NHfree.com will rally in front of the Federal building at 55 Pleasant Street in Concord. We ask you to join us.
There and then we will burn a FEMA flag to symbolize our desire to see this bureaucracy shut down before it can enhance any more hurricanes or help disarm any more innocents. We feel the money currently spent on the "Federal Emergency Magnification Agency" would do more good if they simply left it in taxpayers' pockets!
We will also be collecting signatures on a petition which urges all officials and police in New Hampshire to avoid ever attempting the kind of systematic weapons confiscations inflicted on Louisiana homeowners. The petition pledges resistance by "all available necessary means" should authorities here attempt to perpetrate such an unconstitutional act. When completed, we intend to hand-deliver it to as many officials as we can.
It is a heartbreaking thing to have to say and do, but it is better to say now, in an open-hearted manner, than to wait until the only two options are fighting and surrendering our lawfully borne arms.
If you would like to know more, or arrest me for participating in this resistance to clear and present tyranny, you may contact me at the address below and at 603.721.1490.
May we forever live free or die,
Dave Ridley
My favorite part is
'If you want to know more or arrest me'
That is good.
version I'm sending out to newsrooms:
Dear folks in the Monitor Newsroom:
Wanted to invite you to our FEMA flag burn Wednesday at 55 Pleasant Street in Concord. We'll be burning without a permit BTW so no idea if that will mean some kind of (peaceful) confrontation with authorities.
----
Concord Demonstrators to burn FEMA Flag
If you are furious regarding the disarmament and forced removal of New Orleans residents from their homes this month, if you feel your tax money has been wasted and misused by FEMA, Wednesday September 21 is your chance to do something about it.
From 6 until 8 p.m. that day, activists from NHfree.com will rally in front of the Federal building at 55 Pleasant Street in Concord. We ask you to join us.
There and then we will burn a FEMA flag to symbolize our desire to see this bureaucracy shut down before it can enhance any more hurricane damage or help disarm any more innocents. We feel the money currently spent on the "Federal Emergency Magnification Agency" would do more good if they simply left it in taxpayers' pockets!
We will also be collecting signatures on a petition which urges all officials and police in New Hampshire to avoid ever attempting the kind of systematic weapons confiscations inflicted on Louisiana homeowners. The petition pledges resistance by "all available necessary means" should authorities here attempt to perpetrate such an unconstitutional act. When completed, we intend to hand-deliver it to as many officials as we can.
It is a heartbreaking thing to have to say and do, but it is better to say now, in an open-hearted manner, than to wait until the only two options are fighting and surrendering our lawfully borne arms.
If you would like to know more, or arrest me for participating in this resistance to clear and present tyranny, you may contact me at the address below and at 603.721.1490.
Ridley "NH demonstators to burn FEMA flag" LTE in Union Leader today.
:DHey everybody! Check out Bradley's LTE in the Concord Monitor Today 9/20/05 on the opinion page. I wish they would have used his END quote for the spotlight feature, but it gets people looking for the rest of his LTE that way! His first one in NH! (He feels he is now active...somewhat!)
Cheers everyone!!
Margot Keyes
Great letter, Bradley.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050920/REPOSITORY/509200333/1029/OPINION03
Nice!
From me...
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
I'm writing to ask why there has not been more local coverage regarding Lauren Canario, the Free Stater who, as of this writing, has been in jail for almost two weeks in Connecticut. To sum it up...the 48 year old liberty activist, soon to be a New Hampshire resident, had recently established temporary residence in the embattled Fort Trumbull area there in New London, Conn. That is the neighborhood which the city is trying to tear down using eminent domain, to make room for a hotel. It became the center of this year's controversial Supreme Court ruling.
Lauren attempted to peacefully attend a New London city council meeting, refused to leave when told, refused to be fingerprinted when arrested and refused to speak to the judge when arraigned...all because she believes in Americans' Constitutional right to be safe and secure in their homes. One should not have to do these things to protect that which is enumerated in the very text these judges are sworn to uphold. But I appreciate her doing them and look forward to her arrival here.
Impeach Souter, BRADLEY KEYES, Epsom - Letter
September 20. 2005 8:00AM
It is rare when a U.S. Supreme Court Justice speaks outside the court and even rarer when he or she truthfully and concisely sums up his or her judicial and philosophical views in a single sentence.
"The rule of law exalts lawmakingover individual will," Souter claimed in a speech last Friday.
Those nine words explain the recent Kelo decision to a tee. Justice Souter defers to lawmakers over individual rights, defers to the whims of our current lawmakers over that of our founding principles.
Souter pledged to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights, whose purpose is to create a limited government with limited powers, to protect each individual's unalienable rights and to protect us from our government and our lawmakers.
Souter's statement is in direct conflict with our founding principles and the two cannot exist together.
---ADVERTISEMENT---
Souter has openly stated he is breaking his oath and for this he should be removed and replaced by a justice that is willing to state: "The rule of law exalts each individual's rights over lawmaking and the whims of lawmakers."
BRADLEY KEYES
Epsom
Another excellent letter, Bradley.
Kevin
Sent to UL by me
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
Your article on October 20, regarding "our" government's attempt to seize land from Londonderry homeowners, has captured the attention of the state's growing pro-liberty community. In response to this abuse of eminent domain powers, activists from NHfree.com will stage a property rights rally at Manchester Airport. We'll be joined by some of the homeowners whose land is under attack, including Londonderry resident Al Baldasaro. Al is a Gulf War One vet who fought to preserve the very rights which authorities in Londonderry and Concord seem so eager to cast aside. He is not done fighting, and he is not alone.
The protest will begin at 3 p.m. on Saturday, December 3. It will be near the airport's main entrance (the main entrance for pedestrians). Expected turnout is 15-25. You and your readers are invited to join us as we make a stand against these abusive property seizures.
One of the Londonderry city councilors wrote to Russell complaining that it's not Londonderry doing this.
Quote from: katdillon on November 20, 2005, 08:08 PM NHFT
One of the Londonderry city councilors wrote to Russell complaining that it's not Londonderry doing this.
They are doing nothing, that I see, to oppose it! If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
:)
Should I add that, next time I talk to the media? "...and Londonderry is doing nothing to stop it!"
Quote from: katdillon on November 20, 2005, 08:22 PM NHFT
Should I add that, next time I talk to the media?? "...and Londonderry is doing nothing to stop it!"?
Most definitely! The towns all claim their actions are for the good of the townspeople, so, put up or shut up. Better yet, just resign and get totally out of the way.
Quote from: katdillon on November 20, 2005, 08:22 PM NHFT
Should I add that, next time I talk to the media?? "...and Londonderry is doing nothing to stop it!"?
I agree with your letter! At no time were any of the authorities in Londonderry and Concord concerned about all the land owners rights. They were more concerned about the Co Hass. Keep in mind at the mitigation meeting 99.9 % of the Londonderry residents that spoke was against the taking. Some of our State reps were there, but none of our Councilors were there to hear Londonderry residents concern's.
This was printed in the Keene Sentinel today:
Are your public school children being taught what you want them to learn? Are they being educated in the manner you prefer? Are they safe? Are the public schools responsive to your family's needs? Do you feel respected as a parent by public school employees?
I have come to believe that the public schools cannot and should not be reformed. The government has lost my trust and should not be in charge of educating my child. Government education can never be responsive to the needs of you, as a consumer of education. When government controls the school purse strings, it is only the politically well-connected who control the content and manner of children's education. Without any reasonable accountability, teachers will continue to be forced to use the latest non-functional education fads, rather than tried-and-true methods, and we will continue to graduate illiterates.
It's time to return control over a child's education to his/her parents. It's time to officially separate school and state. Please consider signing the Separation of School and State Proclamation: "I proclaim publicly that I favor ending government involvement in education," which you can find at http://honestedu.org. Please consider taking action which will free our children. This website will also answer questions on how education can and should be handled privately.
Kat Dillon
Keene, NH 03431
Good one Kat! 8)
Really something getting this published!
Well done, Kat!
Thank you, oh odiferous one. Welcome to the forum :)
I only had two letters to the editor published last year. I'm starting early this year and will make sure that I get three LTE published this year. Here comes my Advocates award. I'm doing it all for the FSP 8)
http://commercialappeal.com/mca/letters_to_editor/article/0,1426,MCA_538_4370723,00.html (http://commercialappeal.com/mca/letters_to_editor/article/0,1426,MCA_538_4370723,00.html)
Bigger government isn't solution
In his question-and-answer session at City Hall, Mayor Herenton said Memphis is growing and will always be the capital of the Mid-South (Jan. 6 article, "Herenton takes on media, says he was never in drug rehab/Chides businesses for blocking 'revenue' measures"). He even suggested that the answer to our problems is to create another county tax, and implied that Memphis government has reached full efficiency. He had the audacity to suggest that certain parts of Memphis, such as South and North Memphis, are full of real people.
Basically, Herenton said that we have lots of problems, and government will try to solve them all.
The truth is, Memphis is not growing; its population shrinks every year it does not annex part of the county. Memphis already has the highest taxes in Tennessee, and more taxes will just make things worse. Herenton did not mention any libertarian solution. Every solution he suggested would make government bigger.
This fake person from Germantown is beginning to understand why Memphis has high taxes, high poverty and high crime.
Keith Carlsen
Germantown
Just got a nice phone call about this letter to the editor. The lady thanked me for writing it and said she didn't know others felt that way. Said she was sending me a long article in the mail and didn't want me to worry it was hate mail or something :)
Awesome. ;)
Y'all,
This was published last November in the Sentinel. Just didn't get a chance to post it here yet.
Parking ordinance has a not-so-friendly appeal
HTTP://sentinelsource.com/main.asp?SectionID=43&subsectionID=106&articleID=88849
Web Posted 11/21/2005
Article :
To The Sentinel:
I?m sure glad our city government is busy making sure I don?t have too many friends and that I?m not distracted with trivial things like lowering our sky-high property taxes. But I digress.
The city owns the streets, so I can respect its zeal to enact sensible policies with respect to street parking. I actually prefer having my guests park on my driveway, not on the street. I park my own car in the garage (unlike some), just to make more room for them on the driveway. But now, the city has made it impossible to accommodate more friends on my own property.
Friday?s (Nov. 12) Sentinel reported on the ordinance prohibiting parking on lawns in Keene. This should be alarming first and foremost because it is an outright assault on private-property rights. What?s even more absurd, though, is the hoops one must jump through to actually comply with the law by providing adequate paved or gravel parking on one?s own property.
Since June, I have been plodding through the onerous process of obtaining a waiver to widen my driveway to facilitate more parking. I almost completed the process only to have the planning board cancel its October meeting. That means I won?t be able to complete the project until spring, provided the planning board approves my request. In the meantime, I?m stuck with a stupid-looking, inadequate driveway.
So let?s review: No street parking, no lawn parking, no wide driveways equals less friends. Am I the only one thinking we need some new ?pro-friends? members on the city council.
---
Post-letter note: This was printed in mid-November. At the November planning board meeting (several days after this was published), my request for a variance was denied. The saga continues...
V-
From me...
Dear folks at the Sentinel:
With regard to that 6 percent property tax increase which our ever-ravenous Board of Education Prevention wishes to foist upon Keene residents...I just wanted to point out two statistics.
According to our State Department Of Education, SAU 29 - the government school entity "serving" (or bleeding) Keene - expends an average of well over $9,000 on each student every year. That is if you believe these stats and do not think the number is much higher. It is at least three times what it costs to send your child to the private Trinity Christian School. If TCS can educate a local student for $3K and do it so well that some people *choose* them over all other Monadnock area schools, how are we to believe that SAU 29 requires not just that $9,000+ amount, but that PLUS six percent? If they are so in need of funds, why haven't they yet gotten rid of the oversized, money-sucking administrative building at 34 West as over 60% of voters "requested" during the election a year ago?
A business would fail if it behaved this way, but since it is a government monopoly school system it goes on, forever expanding and leeching even as our student population begins to wane.
I'll be voting no on all of the board's requests for taxpayer dollars come March. A yes vote would be morally wrong considering how high taxes already are in Keene and how inefficiently the money will be used.
*Sources: New Hampshire State Department Of Education - http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/
Trinity Christian School (Keene) - http://tcskeene.org/tuiti.html
Quote from: AlanM on November 20, 2005, 08:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: katdillon on November 20, 2005, 08:08 PM NHFT
One of the Londonderry city councilors wrote to Russell complaining that it's not Londonderry doing this.
They are doing nothing, that I see, to oppose it! If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Careful, you're going to start sounding line Bush :o
Tracy
I keep sending them, they do not print them. But please keep trying.
We have to counter THIS mentality!
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060209/REPOSITORY/602090332/1029/OPINION03
Here is the text in case by the time you see it, it's not accessible:
In Dick Drescher's Feb. 1 Monitor letter concerning the proposed bottled beverage tax, he wrote that it's time New Hampshire ceased its nickel-and-dime thinking on revenue-raising. I agree completely.
Our Legislature over the years steadfastly has refused to admit, let alone recognize, that virtually every segment of state government is inadequately funded, all to the detriment of our citizenry. These include human services, the environment, law enforcement, the judicial system and education.
Instead of facing the entire spectrum and establishing a method to meet the needs, the Legislature has instituted a tax here and there or increased existing taxes. Where is the logic and semblance of order in needs vs. funding? There is none. Now, there's the proposed beverage tax to protect groundwater.
The point is not whether groundwater needs protection. The point is that rather than deciding that some small portion of our state's overall existence needs work that will cost money and then mounting a tax (or a fee) to fund the cost, our Legislature first must determine what the entire cost of operation is and then establish an overall revenue-raising program to meet that cost.
We no longer can afford to impose a little tax or fee here and there. If one on bottled beverages, why not one on, say, building products? After all, houses and the people in them deplete water reserves, pollute the atmosphere, add to school costs, etc.
Or one on food packages that are not recyclable or biodegradable? Or on milk, since cows must drink water to produce milk? Where does the list stop?
Legislators, do your job. Implement a funding system that is universal and equitable and produces revenue sufficient to meet the state's requirements.
ARNOLD C. CODA
Hopkinton
Update: They printed my counter letter today! http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060211/REPOSITORY/602110335/1029/OPINION03
It was short and sweet and mentioned libertarian...
Here it is:
Arnold C. Coda from Hopkinton made the outrageous statement that we need more taxes for more adequate funding of New Hampshire government.
He might find that recently a person was hired to root out waste in government spending and found $8 million in waste and fraud in the New Hampshire HHS department alone!
Even the Republican Party of New Hampshire has lost most of its libertarian principles, especially when talking about taxation.
The above example alone is enough to prove we need less taxation, not more.
This is funny because I just met Arnold Coda...
Tuesday was a huge budget meeting in Hopkinton. He was talking about how high the school budget is.
Someone on the school board told him to take it up with Concord.
ABout 50 people showed for the public hearing.
Last night the budget committee talked about the issue in meeting open to the public.
10 people showed... 7 because they were on the selectman's or school board. Only 3 'citizens'.
I will make sure that I save my LTE and give it to him... TAXES are not the answer.
Quote from: Dreepa on February 09, 2006, 01:00 PM NHFT
This is funny because I just met Arnold Coda...
Tuesday was a huge budget meeting in Hopkinton. He was talking about how high the school budget is.
Someone on the school board told him to take it up with Concord.
ABout 50 people showed for the public hearing.
Last night the budget committee talked about the issue in meeting open to the public.
10 people showed... 7 because they were on the selectman's or school board. Only 3 'citizens'.
I will make sure that I save my LTE and give it to him... TAXES are not the answer.
You go, Chris! :fencing:
(sent to Union Leader as an LTE)
MPD: Our defenders or Fed lapdogs?
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
I wasn't impressed by the Manchester Police Department's decision to arrest two libertarian demonstrators on Wednesday, Feb. 8. Of the many dozens of protesters present, only Kat Dillon and Russell Kanning of Keene had the moxie to carry signs outside Bush's hated "Free Speech Zone," and they refused to submit when Manchester's Finest Federal Lapdogs tried to corral them into the designated ghetto.
Okay, I realize many MPD officers are decent and brave folks, who perhaps have just not thought this through. But guys, now's the time to start. If Feds or your supervisors are telling you to nix the First Amendment by cuffing Free Staters just for holding signs in an unobtrusive manner on a public sidewalk, they're giving you an unconstitutional order. You can read the First Amendment just as well as any judge. Just say no. Or be a lapdog...your pick. Guess the next time this happens we'll find out whether I'm right in my belief that some of you have moral courage.
Russell and Kat are scheduled for arraignment between 8 and 9 a.m. March 1 and have asked everyone who supports free speech rights to join them in court. The continually updating details are at NHfree.com or you can ring me at 603.721.1490.
BTW all you media hounds at the Keene Free Press may publish any of my LTEs on this thread that you wish, no need to ask in advance jus' do it!
Done.
(sent to Union Leader as an LTE)
MPD: Our defenders or Fed lapdogs?
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
I wasn't impressed by the Manchester Police Department's decision to arrest two libertarian demonstrators on Thursday, Feb. 9. Of the many dozens of protesters present, only Kat Dillon and Russell Kanning of Keene had the moxie to carry signs outside the day's hated "Free Speech Zone," and they refused to submit when Manchester's Finest Federal Lapdogs tried to corral them into the designated ghetto.
Okay, I realize many MPD officers are decent and brave folks, who perhaps have just not thought this through. But guys, now's the time to start. If Feds or your supervisors are telling you to nix the First Amendment by cuffing Free Staters just for holding signs in an unobtrusive manner on a public sidewalk, they're giving you an unconstitutional order. You can read the First Amendment just as well as any judge. Just say no. Or be a lapdog...your pick. Guess the next time this happens we'll find out whether I'm right in my belief that some of you have moral courage.
Russell and Kat are scheduled for arraignment between 8 and 9 a.m. March 1 and have asked everyone who supports free speech rights to join them in court. The continually updating details are at NHfree.com or you can ring me at ______.
Here you go Jane!!
Published Saturday Feb 11th CM:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060211/REPOSITORY/602110335/1029/OPINION03
Quote from: Dreepa on February 12, 2006, 12:53 PM NHFT
Here you go Jane!!
Published Saturday Feb 11th CM:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060211/REPOSITORY/602110335/1029/OPINION03
Yeah I pledged to Kat I would do three, so I have one down and two to go!!!!!!!!!
Some relatives in Deerfield called me last night to tell me it was published.
Did I guess correctly that Arnold thinks he is conservative? But yet is advocating taxes?
This is just what we have been up against here in NH...it's as if taxes are expected and taken for granted and it's just a matter of how to use them.
Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me, but they are NOT!
This is what separates the RINOs from the real conservatives.
Right now I am wanting to get the ones about voter fraud published because we are soon to hear some PROPAGANDA from the AG's office to the contrary and our enemies on DFNH are already trying to use it against us. We need to pre-emptively strike....and NOW.
I will post the letters I am sending here....
After you see the subject/details you can also spin off and write some as well.
Now that Fitch has been promoted who is going to be in charge of going after Wetrovksy (sp?)...
We could blast that new person with letters.
Quote from: Dreepa on February 12, 2006, 01:03 PM NHFT
Now that Fitch has been promoted who is going to be in charge of going after Wetrovksy (sp?)...
We could blast that new person with letters.
GOOD THINKING! Because if we don't address the lack of voter fraud prosecution, and indeed the propaganda to assert that fraud does not even exist, we will soon have an income and sales tax both simply because we are outnumbered.
The case of Wetrosky is SO CUT AND DRIED that it CAN'T BE DENIED.
I am crafting a letter right now and will send to a large list of papers and post here as well.
This seems to be my top issue, and next is the 91-A being gutted by the NHMA all because they are now required to keep minutes.
But if it's over email or stamped 'draft' they can get away with secrecy.
HERE'S to keeping the 'sunshine' laws intact!!!!!!!!!!!! Very important tool for ourselves....needs protection!
PS - I'm workin' even on Sunday, doesn't that get me at least a few karma points? LOL
:angel1:
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on February 12, 2006, 01:42 PM NHFT
Joshua Solomon LTE regarding Weare Souter Warrant Article dismemberment.
See http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/02122006/letters/87594.htm (http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/02122006/letters/87594.htm)
8th letter, three other interesting letters prior to Solomon lte.
According to RSA 197:6 NO PETITIONED ARTICLE SHALL BE TAMPERED WITH.
See RSA 32 for exceptions to which petitioned citizens articles are not subject.
Whether you agreed with Logan or not, this illegal activity such as on the part of Kurk the moderator in Weare, IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED.
Yeah, Jane! ;D
Quote from: katdillon on February 12, 2006, 01:57 PM NHFT
Yeah, Jane! ;D
Hey Katty girl! Good to see you on Friday night! What fun that was!
How's this? I signed up for Kat's pledge and this is my first of the three (and hopefully more!)
Any factual/grammatical errors before I send it out?
This one's going to the Democrat, maybe the Lancaster Herald and Union Leader. Or is it in bad taste to send it to more than one paper?
QuoteIn October 2005 Florida got it's first "shoot first" gun law. As the NRA rejoiced this surprisingly libertarian move, and the Brady Campaign cried foul, Floridians became some of the first to back up their right to bear arms with a right to use them for self-defense. The NRA is lobbying in the remaining 49 states for shoot first legislation, including, of course, New Hampshire.
As it stands, if you are attacked in a public place in the state of New Hampshire, including your vehicle, you are armed with a legally owned firearm and you shoot and wound or kill the attacker, you face a long series of legal troubles and possibly a criminal record. The family of the victim is likely to sue, and in some cases has won, establishing that you may not have faced as immediate danger as it seemed. The law differs in your home - should a burglar enter your home, especially one armed, you are legally entitled to shoot the tresspasser, and in nearly every case, you will be cleared of any crime.
When one applies for a conceal carry gun permit, an accepted reason for carrying a concealed weapon is self-defense. Why then, can defending onesself carry such harsh penalties? I don't know to be honest. Current law, which has been marred by inconsistent court decisions, expects a person to make an attempt to flee the scene before opening fire. Would you expect a young woman to turn her back on a rapist to flee? Would you turn your back on an attacker? A shoot first law in New Hampshire would allow you to defend yourself without fear of months spent in court. Many who have used a firearm for self-defense have already saved their own lives. In a largely rural state, where there is not a police officer at every corner, a law like this is something we need.
Opponents of shoot first laws, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, overlook the fact that the law requires that you need to have been attacked or adequately threatened by an aggressor to open fire. They claim that anyone who feels "threatened" in a public place, such as during a heated confrontation, may open fire. This is not so. Though the terms of the Florida shoot first law (Bill S.0436.) are decidedly ambiguous, they leave room for courtroom interpretation, and the law does not prevent police from finding probable cause that the shooter was not justified in his or her shooting.
When the shoot first legislation reaches New Hampshire, remember, whether or not you bear arms, it is your right to do so. Perhaps you do, maybe your neighbor does, but chances are somebody you know carries a gun at least occasionally, and the reason is most likely self defense. Don't let honest citizens who carry guns legally and without malicious intent fall victim to humiliating prosecution for defending their own inalienable right to life. When the time comes, please contact your state representatives in support of Shoot First.
Send to as many as you wish but separately.
Sounds great!
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on February 12, 2006, 03:13 PM NHFT
RSA 39:2 & 3 are correct references. The language you refer to does not exist in School Warrant RSA 197:6. It does refer to only allowing only minor textural changes.
RSA 32:18-a is exception.
Petition Warrants have been highly modified over the years at DB's. I haven't had any success with the AG. The legislature this past year declared "no" meant "no" on municipal budget warrant mandates regarding appropriations.
My understanding is that the people can change amounts of money requested by the governing body HOWEVER citizens petitioned warrant articles are a right of FREE SPEECH and are NOT to be changed unless by the signatories who originally submitted the petition.
We have a lawyer's opinion on this.
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on February 12, 2006, 03:34 PM NHFT
Where is Clement's Superior Court appeal? He has 22 days to put his money where his mouth is.
Hmm, as I said, he doesn't know the NH law like we do....
Quote from: wholetthedogin? on February 12, 2006, 03:48 PM NHFT
RSA 673:18 II involves doing away with zoning and planning commissions....(hmmm) ;)
I'm not sure how that's being used. I just know that 197:6 states that citizens petitions are NOT subject to the provisions of RSA 32.
Jane that was a nice letter! It was so...simple! I like the way you just tossed the word libertarian in there as tho it were assumed that libertarian is automatically good heh heh
Aries the Union Leader will print almost every letter it receives under 200 words and very few above 200 words I believe. So your letter is possibly too long for them.
I do think many papers frown on you sending your letter to multiple papers but it's probably hard for them to tell you are doing it. this would become an issue if you become a frequent LTE writer. definitely you will have to send to each of them separately.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on February 12, 2006, 04:55 PM NHFT
Jane that was a nice letter! It was so...simple! I like the way you just tossed the word libertarian in there as tho it were assumed that libertarian is automatically good heh heh
Thanks!
Well TRUE R's are libertarians if you look back at the platform. There is nothing in there that states we don't want gays to marry, etc.
We just want less gov't, MUCH less. And that includes marriage stuff.
So to me, true Rs are libertarians....and the people, not the GOP itself, who call themselves Rs are the ones who most think like us.
PS - Freedom is a simple concept and requires little explanation or apology!
for a list of NH places to send LTEs visit:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=1205.0
it also has the list of talk radio shows and web forums in-state
I don't know if he every posts here but Bradley Keyes (FS) who lives in Epsom had an LTE published today. (Not online yet)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on February 12, 2006, 04:59 PM NHFT
Aries the Union Leader will print almost every letter it receives under 200 words and very few above 200 words I believe. So your letter is possibly too long for them.
I do think many papers frown on you sending your letter to multiple papers but it's probably hard for them to tell you are doing it. this would become an issue if you become a frequent LTE writer. definitely you will have to send to each of them separately.
I noticed that and I'm shortening it for the UL right now. I'm also going to shorten the original for the Democrat and Monitor.
Also, I'd love if it goes in the Keene Free Press as well!
I sent my shortened one to the Union Leader first. I'll revise and shorten the original for the other papers later on.
Here it is:
QuoteLast October Florida got a "shoot first" law and became the first to back up their right to bear arms with a right of self-defense. The NRA will lobby in all states for similar legslation.
Currently, if you're publicly attacked, and shoot, you face legal troubles and possibly a criminal record. You may also be sued. Self-defense is an accepted reason to carry, but the law expects one to _try_ running before shooting. Should an armed woman turn her back on a rapist? A shoot first law in NH would allow self-defense without fear of months in court. Many have used guns for self-defense. In this largely rural state, where police are not around every corner, this law is necessary.
Opponents overlook that one must be attacked or adequately threatened by an aggressor to shoot. Nobody can simply claim to feel threatened and open fire. Additionally, Florida's law (S.0436.) leaves room for judicial interpretation.
Whether or not you bear arms, it's your right. Chances are, somebody you know carries a gun, probably for self-defense. Don't let good people fall victim to humiliating prosecution for defending their inalienable right to life. Please contact your state representatives in support of Shoot First.
It was really hard cutting out so much stuff to get it down to 200 words, but according to the word count site google gave me, it is exactly 200.
*** I don't usually get the Union Leader, so if you see it in there please tell me!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on February 12, 2006, 05:14 PM NHFT
for a list of NH places to send LTEs visit:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=1205.0
it also has the list of talk radio shows and web forums in-state
Also CNHT links has all that info.
I'll put it in the Keene Free Press. What name should I put down for you, aries?
Quote from: katdillon on February 12, 2006, 06:48 PM NHFT
I'll put it in the Keene Free Press. What name should I put down for you, aries?
Matt Covey (From Twin Mountain as well if you want)
:) Thanks
This is the final verson I'm sending out to all the papers (except UL of course), if you could please print this for consistency:
QuoteLast October Florida got the nation's first successful "shoot first" law. As the NRA rejoiced this surprisingly libertarian move, and the Brady Campaign cried foul, Floridians became some of the first to back up their right to bear arms with a right to use them for self-defense. The NRA will lobby in all states for similar legislation.
Currently, if you're publicly attacked, even in your vehicle, and shoot, you face legal troubles and possibly a criminal record. You may also be sued by the attacker or his family. This differs from in your home, where an intruder is always there illegally, and shooting him is nearly always lawful.
Self-defense is a constitutionally accepted reason to carry a weapon, so why does using one for self defense carry such harsh penalties? Current law, which has been marred by inconsistent court decisions, expects a person to make an attempt to flee the scene before opening fire. Would you demonize a young woman who defended herself from a rapist rather than trying to run? A shoot first law in NH would allow self-defense without fear of months in court. Many have used guns for self-defense. In this largely rural state, where police are not at every street corner, this law is necessary.
Opponents overlook that one must be attacked or adequately threatened by an aggressor to shoot. Their claims that one can simply say they feel threatened and open fire are false. Florida's law (S.0436.) leaves room for judicial interpretation, and the police may judge whether the shooter was justified, and if they determine that he was not in immediate danger, make an arrest.
Whether or not you bear arms, it's your right to do so. Chances are, somebody you know carries a gun, probably for self-defense. Don't let honest citizens carrying guns legally and without criminal intent fall victim to humiliating prosecution for defending their inalienable right to life. Please contact your state representatives in support of a Shoot First law.
I submitted this to about 10 papers throughout the state as well as Keene Free Press:
To the editor,
This is an open letter to the Governor and his Attorney General regarding RAMPANT, unprosecuted (up to 30%) voter fraud.
This problem might cost us a sales/income tax if NOT PURSUED and STOPPED.
A most high profile case to illustrate the point: It is a recorded fact that one Geoff Wetrosky voted in the Manchester city elections. He then fled back to South Dakota where he lives and always has lived. While he was in NH getting paid by John Kerry, he stayed at the home of Kathy Sullivan, NH Democrat Chair. The bottom line is, DOES HE LIVE HERE NOW and what is his legal domicile in NH? If he has none, what will be done about his illegal vote?
This is a perfect example of what a good percentage of voters did in the last election; they voted and then left the state for their REAL place of domicile.
Meanwhile, a kid doing a prank was heartily prosecuted proving the bias of the AG's office!
It's time for the Governor to own up to this and order his AG to do the job she should, without prejudice!
OK, they're both up on the Keene Free Press:
http://keenefreepress.editme.com/VoteFraud
http://keenefreepress.editme.com/ShootFirst
Quote from: katdillon on February 13, 2006, 02:06 AM NHFT
OK, they're both up on the Keene Free Press:
http://keenefreepress.editme.com/VoteFraud
http://keenefreepress.editme.com/ShootFirst
Thanks Kat...not that I wish my name to be spread out there, but there is a 't' between the 'i' and the 'k'. :)
Oops, thought that looked funny.
Quote from: katdillon on February 13, 2006, 08:50 AM NHFT
Oops, thought that looked funny.
No prob. I just wish I could have squeezed the word libertarian in there, but voter fraud is something for all to worry about, especially when they are claiming that none exists.
The problem is, they just won't prosecute it.
Quote from: CNHT on February 13, 2006, 09:05 AM NHFT
The problem is, they just won't prosecute it.
... unless you are a republican.
Quote from: Dreepa on February 13, 2006, 10:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on February 13, 2006, 09:05 AM NHFT
The problem is, they just won't prosecute it.
... unless you are a republican.
True. The major part of the fraud is the unions and students signing up to vote when they should not and this is how Lynch was elected...and that's what they wanted so they do nothing to stop it. This is why those who don't vote are just aiding and abetting NH becoming a socialist state. Even if you think it's futile at the national level, please do vote in NH because if you don't, we will end up with both a sales AND income tax due to being outnumbered by these people.
Quote from: CNHT on February 12, 2006, 09:32 PM NHFT
Meanwhile, a kid doing a prank was heartily prosecuted proving the bias of the AG's office!
It's time for the Governor to own up to this and order his AG to do the job she should, without prejudice!
Bias...prejudice? Wasn't Kelly Ayotte, the NH AG, nominated by Benson ???
30% voter fraud ::)
Quote from: dead president on February 13, 2006, 11:03 AM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on February 12, 2006, 09:32 PM NHFT
Meanwhile, a kid doing a prank was heartily prosecuted proving the bias of the AG's office!
It's time for the Governor to own up to this and order his AG to do the job she should, without prejudice!
Bias...prejudice? Wasn't Kelly Ayotte, the NH AG, nominated by Benson ???
30% voter fraud ::)
As I said, we have a lot of 'fake' Republicans in this state! They are democrats who come here and register as Republicans.
The kid who voted using his dad's similar name did it as a prank, not connected to any political movement, and voted Republican. This is why he was prosecuted.
Yea...a prank ;)
Quote from: dead president on February 13, 2006, 11:43 AM NHFT
Yea...a prank ;)
Yes absolutely. It was his act and his alone. It was not connected to any campaign to highlight voter fraud. He was just being a smartass. But it's proof that if you are perceived as a fiscal conservative who is anti-income and sales tax and indeed anti-MOST taxes, you WILL be prosecuted.
So, you don't take voter fraud seriously if a Republican does it? 8)
But if a democrat does it...it is a vast left wing conspiracy :o
Quote from: dead president on February 13, 2006, 12:06 PM NHFT
So, you don't take voter fraud seriously if a Republican does it? 8)
Of course I do!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm only saying that the AG's office ONLY takes it seriously when it's an R.
SO DON'T TRY TO TWIST THIS INTO THAT I SAID ANYTHING TO INDICATE OTHERWISE :hopmad:
I could also do the same to you and extrapolate a bias towards democrats and then assume you think taxes are good, and if you do, what are you doing on this board?
Don't let the troll get to you, Janie.
Quote from: katdillon on February 13, 2006, 12:13 PM NHFT
Don't let the troll get to you, Janie.
I thought I'd put him on ignore, and don't know how he got back in view again... :icon_crashcomp:
What I was trying to point out is, that the kid was not part of some wholesale effort to register folks who really should not have been allowed to vote, such as the effort by the dems to register transient non-residents...he was just being a smartass.
After all...if only R's would be prosecuted, they wouldn't dare do it, right? Because then that is all you would see in the news and it would look bad for the no tax crowd..
So of those 3 cases that were prosecuted, they were isolated and not part of an organized push such as is going on with those who elected Lynch.
Even if you have issues upon which you agree with the Dems, they are almost NEVER fiscally conservative, are anti-gun, and are generally low on the liberty score when compared to people who are Rs. If they say they are fiscally conservative, get into office and then change their tune as Lynch did. He refused to sign the no new taxes pledge but in every ad he said he pledged not to raise more taxes...it was an out and out lie intended to confuse those who knew about the pledge that EVERY politician worth his salt takes here in NH.
Both parties at the administration level are corrupted, in that the Dems just don't think the way we do, and the R's don't follow their true platform. The Dems are in sync with the people calling themselves Dems, but the people calling themselves R's are not in sync with their own party heads and are often perceived as radical anti-taxers simply because the R party itself at the state level is so corrupted with Dems in disguise.
But your best friends I think are mostly from the R party, and as individuals would score MUCH higher on a liberty index such as the 'World's Smallest Quiz'.
Well......of course you think that >:D
Sorry, I hate
both all political parties.
I know you choose sides...so I don't expect an unbiased opinion from you ;)
http://vote2004.eriposte.com/swingstates/newhampshire.htm
Quote11/16/04 [Permalink]
Kerry supporters in New Hampshire who had Kerry-Edwards signs found roofing nails in their driveway on election day
Via Votersunite, we have this report:
The election is over, but police are still investigating criminal acts in Wolfeboro that may have been politically motivated.
Several residents found roofing nails scattered in their driveways the morning of the election.
"I didn't really think much about it until the next day, and we heard other people had nails in their driveway, too," resident Steve Davis said.
Davis and his wife, Joyce Davis, said they realized that all the victims had Kerry-Edwards sign in their yards.
"To put nails in a driveway -- that just crosses the line," said Joyce Davis, who is also vice chairwoman of Wolfeboro Democrats. "I just don't understand. If the object was voter intimidation, that didn't work. It's just not funny."
Police said the nail incidents started right after a number of Kerry-Edwards signs were reported missing. Some residents reported that the nails were thrown directly underneath their back tires.
Police said it's fortunate no one got hurt. The 1-inch nails have a flat head and stand up easily, making it possible to puncture a tire or someone's foot. Many of the nails were discovered over the weekend when kids were out trick-or-treating.
"Everybody is passionate about their candidate, but this is just too much," Lt. Brian Black said. "It's not right."
Police said they are continuing to investigate the incidents.
11/2/04 [Permalink]
Bogus phone calls in New Hampshire tells Kerry supporters he is leading and that they don't need to go and vote
Via Campaign Desk, a report in TNR:
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2:05 p.m.: First dirty trick of the day up here: The New Hampshire Democratic Party says somebody is making bogus phone calls that advise voters to sit out the election because Kerry is already so far ahead. According to a transcript of the call provided by the Dems: "So, if you're going down to vote you don't have to bother, because he's doing so well that we feel that there are enough people that have already voted in the state of New Hampshire."
The call is so ridiculous, it's hard to believe that anyone would take it seriously [eRiposte note: Really? Don't be too sure]. But Kathy Sullivan, the ever-quotable chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, described the calls as an "assault on our democracy" and said she's alerted the New Hampshire attorney general.
10/15/04 [Permalink] UPDATED 10/26/04
New England Chair of Bush-Cheney 04 - Jim Tobin - reported to be unindicted co-conspirator in 2002 GOP phone-jamming vote fraud scandal in New Hampshire which has already produced two felony guilty pleas; Bush Justice Department intervenes to prevent further depositions and delays fact finding, but Tobin resigns from current post (while denying wrong-doing)
Here's Josh Marshall:
Ya heard it here first.
And now the Manchester Union Leader comes on board.
The unindicted co-conspirator in a 2002 election fraud case, which has already yielded two felony guilty pleas, is none other than Jim Tobin, New England regional chair of Bush-Cheney 2004, according to court documents filed Thursday by the New Hampshire Democratic Party and now reported by the Manchester Union Leader.
Tobin is named, according to the Union Leader and TPM sources, in the plea agreements of Allen Raymond and Chuck McGee, the two men who have already pled guilty to felonies in the case.
Tobin, says the article, did not return calls requesting comment from the Union Leader Tuesday or Wednesday. Tobin has also not returned repeated calls over the last three months from TPM requesting comment on his alleged involvement in the case. TPM last attempted to contact Tobin on Sunday and Monday of this week.
Now the Justice Department is intervening to delay discovery and depositions that would almost certainly bring more of the facts to light before election day.
Tobin's alleged role has been an open secret for some time within the Bush campaign, political and journalistic circles in New Hampshire and, of course, among the lawyers involved in the case. But late Thursday the state Democratic party, which has been trying for months to get more information on what happened in this case, identified Tobin by name in a new court filing and the Union Leader ran the story.
A few questions ...
1. Why do Justice Department officials in Washington seem to be interfering in the legal proceedings surrounding this case to push depositions and discovery past November 2nd? (See the Union Leader article and today's court filing.)
2. When did the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign first learn of Tobin's alleged involvement in the phone-jamming case?
3. Does the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign believe that Tobin is an appropriate person to oversee the Bush campaign in New Hampshire and the rest of New England when his alleged involvement in this earlier election fraud case is still being investigated.
UPDATE 10/16/04:
Josh Marshall has a couple of updates. First, this:
Bush-Cheney New England campaign chair Jim Tobin resigns over election tampering scandal.
A few suggested questions for national political reporters needing to do catch-up on this story.
Tobin was named by the two men who've pled guilty in the case as part of their plea agreements. The Bush campaign has known for months of Tobin's involvement in this case. The only reason he resigned today is that this information was finally pried free from court documents. Why did they keep him in such a senior post if they knew of his role in such serious wrongdoing?
At the time the incident happened Tobin was the Northeast political director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. This was under Sen. Bill Frist's tenure as chairman. Did anyone else at the NRSC know about this at the time?
Next:
Beside the Bush campaign angle to Jim Tobin's resignation today, there's the connection to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
At the time the election-tampering incident happened, Tobin was Northeast political director for the Committee. What now seems clear from the offers of proof of the two men who've pled guilty in the case is that the scheme was not a local affair but arranged through the NRSC or at a minimum through its regional political director, Tobin. This is, again, what the first man to plead guilty in the case, Allen Raymond, told prosecutor Todd Hinnen during his plea negotiations.
Which raises the question, is Tobin the only person at the NRSC who was aware of the scheme? And was this the only such scheme Tobin was involved in during his tenure at the NRSC, given that he had responsibility for several other hotly contested senate races that year?
During the 2002 election cycle, the Executive Director of the NRSC was Mitch Bainwol; the Political Director was Chris LaCivita. Bainwol is now Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). LaCivita now works for push-poll king Tom Synhorst's DCI Group and is also a senior advisor to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Asking them might be a good place to start.
UPDATE 10/21/04:
Via reader PT, here's a report in the Nashua Telegraph:
Why is it taking the U.S. Justice Department so long to get to the bottom of the phone-jamming incident in the 2002 New Hampshire election?
The phone jamming, initiated by Republican campaign operatives to suppress Democrats from voting in that heated state election, doesn?t involve an entangled international conspiracy. Nor is it a plot with a cast of thousands.
Yet, two years later, the Justice Department is still plodding along in its investigation. So far, two of the parties in the phone-jamming incident have pleaded guilty.
Chuck McGee, the former executive director of the state Republican Party, pleaded guilty a few months ago to paying $15,600 to a Virginia telemarketing company to make the calls that jammed the get-out-the vote lines of Democrats the morning of the 2002 election.
The Virginia company then hired another firm to jam the lines. Allen Raymond, a GOP consultant and president of the Virginia company, has also pleaded guilty in the phone-jamming incident.
McGee and Raymond, in pleading guilty, said they had spoken about the phone-jamming operation with an unidentified official of a national political organization. Now the question is whether the responsibility for this abuse goes farther up the Republican campaign ladder.
Unfortunately, we?ll probably only know after Nov. 2. But the state Democratic Committee thinks there are other Republicans involved and, frustrated by the investigation?s slow pace, took matters into its own hands last week by going to the state Superior Court to get permission to question Republican officials believed involved in this incidence.
One of them is James Tobin, the New England campaign chairman for the re-election of President Bush.
Two years ago, Tobin was the northeast political director for the Republican Senatorial Committee. He stepped down Friday as New England campaign chairman for the Bush-Cheney ticket, but said it was only to prevent distractions in the campaign effort.
The 2002 race between then Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and U.S. Rep. John Sununu for the U.S. Senate was the most heated of the contests that year and the dirtiest. The phone-jamming blocked get-out-the-vote efforts by Democrats in Nashua, Manchester and several other places for a couple of hours. That in itself may not have tilted the election, but it?s a blatant abuse of election laws.
Give credit to the state Democratic Committee for keeping the heat on this phone-jamming case. The Superior Court OK?d the committee?s request last week to obtain depositions, but the federal Justice Department then stepped in and brought the effort to a halt. It said allowing the taking of depositions now would mess up testimony from potential witnesses in criminal proceedings the department is working on and also in ongoing action before a federal grand jury.
It would be easy to accept the pleas from McGee and Raymond, punish them with fines and jail time, and call the case closed. Once an election is over, voters forget and move on to other controversies.
But if others were involved in this phone-jamming, they, too, ought to be brought to justice, except, it ought not to take years for this to happen.
Voter suppression tactics are the occasional topic of rumors on the political circuit. The 2002 incident in New Hampshire is one of the few that has led to convictions. Democratic Party Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan, in pressing for accountability in this incident, has rightfully refused to roll over and let bygones be bygones.
Vote suppression tactics interfere with the right of political parties to get out the vote and, in extreme cases, could intimidate people from voting. This case should be a warning that in New Hampshire that kind of chicanery won?t be considered business as usual.
Yet, it shouldn?t require many more months before the Justice Department gets to the bottom of this particular case and the identity of all the law breakers is made known. By then, the department?s findings may only produce yawns and suspicions of foot-dragging.
UPDATE 10/22/04
Josh Marshall notes this:
Back on July 1st a source first told me that Allen Raymond, the man at the heart of the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal, had fingered Jim Tobin as one of his accomplices. (Tobin's role was reported first on TPM on October 11th.) Tobin, as we've noted earlier, was the New England regional director of the Bush-Cheney campaign until he resigned last Friday.
That's more than three and a half months ago. The Bush campaign has known at least since then. And I suspect much longer. And yet they left him in the post.
That means the campaign kept in place a man implicated in an election tampering scam that took place in the same part of the country over which the campaign had given him oversight.
What does that tell you?
Another point ...
To the best of my knowledge no political reporter covering the Bush campaign has asked a campaign spokesperson 1) when they found out about Tobin's role in the election tampering scheme and 2) why they didn't remove him from the campaign after they learned.
What does that tell you?
If anyone knows of a reporter who's asked or an article where an answer has been published, please let me know.
In other phone-jamming news, yesterday the Justice Department again went to the mat to prevent New Hampshire Democrats from gaining access to evidence about Tobin's role in the case.
UPDATE 10/26/04
Via Dailykos, Former NH GOP Senator Bob Smith flays the GOP for its actions:
I personally witnessed Mel Thomson, a Republican, ill and in severe pain, force himself up from his seat to shake hands with then recently elected Democrat Gov. Jeanne Shaheen. He did it because he was a gentleman, but he also did it to show respect for the governor and for the people who elected her in a fair election a few months before.
That was yesterday.
Today we hear news that Charles McGee, the former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, and Allen Raymond, a GOP consultant, pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from their involvement in the jamming of telephones on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2002. Democrats' computer-generated calls to get out the vote were blocked and thus voters did not receive the intended message due to illegal action by some in the Republican Party [...]
This is a far cry from the party of Lincoln that proudly and correctly stood on principle to outlaw slavery. It is a far cry from the party of great and principled statesmen like Mel Thomson, Norris Cotton, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt. What a contrast between those great Republicans and current party leaders, who refuse to speak out against this despicable action by pathetic political hacks.
James Tobin, President Bush's 2004 New England campaign chairman and the Northeast political director of the Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002, said, "These allegations date back to years and have absolutely nothing to do with the present campaign."
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Mr. Tobin, these allegations have everything to do with the present campaign because the people must feel confident that the 2002 election fraud will not be repeated. The best way to restore confidence is for all those involved to tell the truth now.
Both parties have a right to expect a fair election result even if it is not always a favorable one. Tobin also said, "It is disappointing, indeed, to see the opposition party (Democrats) manipulate the court system in a blatant attempt to influence the election."
What a mind-numbing hypocritical answer that is! Who is trying to influence elections, Mr. Tobin? Please do not insult us further.
New Hampshire Democrat Party Chair Kathy Sullivan said, "The public should know Tobin's role in this, along with the roles of any other high-level GOP officials."
Kathy and I have not agreed very often, but she is absolutely correct. We need the truth now to restore confidence in the coming election. She has a right to be angry. Can you imagine the Republican outrage if the Democrats had been guilty of similar conduct? Does a party that refuses to tell the truth before Election Day deserve our vote on election day?
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on February 13, 2006, 12:38 PM NHFT
Well......of course you think that >:D
I think it because it's consistently true. Most R's (people) have no idea what the 'party' is doing...saying...scheming.
So next time we accuse the AG of bias, and you think we favor R's, don't be all over us saying that both parties are corrupt, but stop and think WHY are they biased against the R's?
It's because they 'don't want no more fiscal conservatives 'round heyah!' And that's not what YOU want I shouldn't think.
So I'm just saying don't spite your own nose?
Quote from: dead president on February 13, 2006, 12:40 PM NHFT
Sorry, I hate both all political parties.
I know you choose sides...so I don't expect an unbiased opinion from you ;)
OH really? The above statement just proves to me what I am saying, that YOU DON'T GET IT.
We are not talking about the 'parties' and choosing 'sides'. We are talking about the PEOPLE WHO VOTE and how they vote.
I do not 'choose sides', but I agree with those who agree with me, and on taxes it's the R's.
Yes we all hate the organized political 'parties' because it is impossible to let just two or three parties define us all. But FACT IS one has better sympathizers than the other when it comes to anti-tax issues and THAT'S a FACT. WE don't care what the 'party' organization thinks or does. But people who are voting and being favored are being favored for a reason. THAT is what you should be looking at...they know they want an income and sales tax and know the Dems will vote for one. PERIOD. So your hating both parties and as a result, refusing to go against what the AG is doing, is just helping out the enemy. HATRED MAKES US BLIND to the truth.
Therefore, if you take ANY stand on something, ANYTHING, it can be said that you are hereby taking 'sides' and thus have some sort of bias. Otherwise, if you did not take some sort of stand, you would do nothing but sit around and criticize those who are doing something. And that is what you are doing now.
This renders you of no use to the movement.
And you are hereby put back on ignore... :sleepy2:
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on February 13, 2006, 12:38 PM NHFT
Well......of course you think that >:D
Lloyd, if you don't want to be seen as 'biased' then I guess you won't take a stand on anything whatsoever.
If you're biased against defending the anti-tax people just because they are R's and you hate the organization, then I see it as not helpful to the Free State because it renders you as useless against or for anything. In this case, who cares about the R as an organization? I'm trying to protect the rights of those who are voting for the stuff I believe in, as I feel they are not being treated equally because the opposite people, the ones who WILL vote for a sales and income tax, are being favored and let go.
When we fought the water well ED issue in the statehouse, we called in the ACLU. I happen to dislike them as an org, but they were with us on this issue. If I had let my 'bias' get in the way, I would not have had their testimony to squash that bill.
Certainly you are smarter than that! So while you are all accusing me of 'bias' think about what I have just said.
If you can't do something positive, then don't do anything to criticize those of us who are acting and not just talking about it.
Let's not be so busy hating some 'entity' that we fail to see the consequences of inaction.
Jane in on a tear..... oh yeah!
Quote from: Dreepa on February 13, 2006, 01:15 PM NHFT
Jane in on a tear..... oh yeah!
Well if folks are going to be so radical they can't do anything about anything, the enemies are just going to take over...and I resent being called biased when I am working all day long for liberty when I COULD and SHOULD be instead drinking a mai-tai lying on a lounge chair in the middle of a cruise ship pool with one of my boyfriends...
Are you a registered republican?
Did you vote for Bush?
<insert old lady insult here>
One of your boyfriends? :tongue3:
Just pulling your leg, Jane. I held a sign for Stretch Kennedy in 2004, will work with the NHLA when I move there and work with their 'not too disgusting' non-rinos when I can't find a Libertarian to support.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on February 13, 2006, 03:08 PM NHFT
Just pulling your leg, Jane. I held a sign for Stretch Kennedy in 2004, will work with the NHLA when I move there and work with their 'not too disgusting' non-rinos when I can't find a Libertarian to support.
Well thank God for that Lloyd. We need all the help we can get. :icon_thumright:
Quote from: katdillon on February 13, 2006, 02:06 AM NHFT
OK, they're both up on the Keene Free Press:
http://keenefreepress.editme.com/VoteFraud
http://keenefreepress.editme.com/ShootFirst
Thanks!
Quote from: katdillon on February 13, 2006, 03:00 PM NHFT
One of your boyfriends? :tongue3:
Tom Cruise, David Beckham, you know, the whole gang!
Quote from: aries on February 13, 2006, 03:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: katdillon on February 13, 2006, 03:00 PM NHFT
One of your boyfriends? :tongue3:
Tom Cruise, David Beckham, you know, the whole gang!
Yuck! (I don't even know who David Beckham is!)
Quote from: CNHT on February 13, 2006, 03:37 PM NHFT
Yuck! (I don't even know who David Beckham is!)
Bend it like....
http://images.google.com/images?q=david+beckham&hl=en
Quote from: Dreepa on February 13, 2006, 04:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on February 13, 2006, 03:37 PM NHFT
Yuck! (I don't even know who David Beckham is!)
Bend it like....
http://images.google.com/images?q=david+beckham&hl=en
Yuck, not my type...and a little old for me.. :angel10:
Sent this to the Monitor:
---
In your editorial "Morning after bills should all be defeated" you decry the fact that the state does not force pharmacies to sell morning-after pills.
But I was under the impression that slavery had been abolished. I thought it had been settled that, with the exception of incarcerated criminals, no individual may force another individual to engage in labor against their will.
Yet that is exactly what you champion in your opinion piece. You have decided that since you like morning-after pills so much, the state should force everyone who runs a pharmacy to carry them...their religion be damned, their morals be damned, their freedom of choice and trade be damned. And everyone else should be forced to pay the enforcement costs.
What's even sillier...you list Massachusetts as the state we should emulate in this regard! Can I get a show of hands among readers...how many of you want us to be more like Massachusetts?
The government needs to leave companies alone and let them not carry what they want to not carry. Customers will lay waste to any business that does not meet their needs...by not shopping there.
That is perfect!
Quote from: Dreepa on February 17, 2006, 07:37 AM NHFT
That is perfect!
I wonder how many time's the governor's daughter has used this pill? She was just arrested again for drinking at college....now he says she will have to come home and commute, as punishment.
Quote from: CNHT on February 17, 2006, 01:28 PM NHFT
I wonder how many time's the governor's daughter has used this pill?
I would ask the same about you, but seeing as how you are the cobwebb mistress, you would need to get find someone to impregnate you first, and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen. You have a birth control personality. :P
Quote from: dead president on February 17, 2006, 02:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on February 17, 2006, 01:28 PM NHFT
I wonder how many time's the governor's daughter has used this pill?
I would ask the same about you, but seeing as how you are the cobwebb mistress, you would need to get find someone to impregnate you first, and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen.
Yes, you are right, it can't happen, biologically that is.
QuoteYou have a birth control personality. :P
You know, I think you owe me an apology for that statement. I have no idea what 'birth control personality' is or why I would have it.
In fact I am a right to lifer, if you really must know, and don't believe in birth control, for myself.
However, at this point in life, I don't need birth control because I am too old to have children and have been for the last 20 years.
So my philosophy is pretty liberal on that, since I wouldn't be harming anyone or producing any children without a name.
Now that you have been proven wrong once again, I guess I can put you back on ignore......
:dark1:
From KBCraig (who is an undergrounder but not yet in NH):
---
I sent this to my local paper, in response to this column:
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/articles/2006/02/12/local_news/opinion/opinions02.txt
To the editor,
I enjoyed the light-hearted opinion column on the FEMA trailers parked at the Hope airport ("What can be done with mobile homes?", Sunday, February 12, 2006).
The humorous suggestions were all good, but there was a serious point I'd like to address. The editor wrote, "A lot of the people who were displaced by the storms don?t want to live in trailers and think they deserve better. (They don?t; None of us deserves anything. We earn what we can, and sometimes lose it through no fault of our own. But we have no inalienable entitlements. Sometimes we are lucky and sometimes when disaster strikes the only choice is to rebuild and start over from scratch. That?s life.)"
Thank you for that. None of us is entitled to homes, to food, to clothing, to medicine and health care, nor to government stipends in our old age. No person has a right to claim what is someone else's, and anything that is provided by the government is paid for by your family, friends and neighbors.
Religious and social mores may obligate us to look after the poor, and to take care of the unfortunate people in life. These are good things. That does not give us free reign to force others to pay for our charitable acts. Give directly, and keep government out of it.
If you'd like to live in a state where the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property, I invite you to read about the Free State Project, at http://www.freestateproject.org. As a "Free-Stater", I'll be moving to New Hampshire within the next two years. Taxes are lower in New Hampshire, incomes are higher, gun laws are less restrictive, and the government is smaller and more accountable. The state motto is "Life free or die". I encourage all liberty lovers to read about the project, and to join us.
Kevin Craig
Nash
Thanks... I meant to post it here, but was in a hurry and couldn't find this forum.
*gaaaaaaah!* I can't believe I wrote "Life free or die"!
Oh, well. This paper is so full of errors and typos that no one will ever notice.
Kevin
Quote from: DadaOrwell on February 16, 2006, 05:40 PM NHFT
Sent this to the Monitor:
---
In your editorial "Morning after bills should all be defeated" you decry the fact that the state does not force pharmacies to sell morning-after pills.
But I was under the impression that slavery had been abolished. I thought it had been settled that, with the exception of incarcerated criminals, no individual may force another individual to engage in labor against their will.
Yet that is exactly what you champion in your opinion piece. You have decided that since you like morning-after pills so much, the state should force everyone who runs a pharmacy to carry them...their religion be damned, their morals be damned, their freedom of choice and trade be damned. And everyone else should be forced to pay the enforcement costs.
What's even sillier...you list Massachusetts as the state we should emulate in this regard! Can I get a show of hands among readers...how many of you want us to be more like Massachusetts?
The government needs to leave companies alone and let them not carry what they want to not carry. Customers will lay waste to any business that does not meet their needs...by not shopping there.
This was posted today 2/19 on the front page of the 'VIEWPOINTS' section. It is not online.
Sent to UL
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
Thanks for Anne Saunders' March 6 article shedding light on the Medicare prescription drug debacle and its local effect. Yet again our Federal overlords have intervened in New Hampshire medicine, promising to alleviate drug prices, only to make them rise.
If you are a New Hampshire citizen working for a Federal agency...please do the patriotic thing: Take longer lunches. Come to work late and go home early; spend more time with your families. Reduce your productivity by all practical means, because most of the "medicines" your institution produces are toxic to this state.
:)
Pat getting some more LTE action from the CM:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/REPOSITORY/603060308/1029/OPINION03
the citizen LTE above regarding the Outlaw Manicure bill ran on the 3rd looks like.
it's at
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060203/NEWS1302/102030083&SearchID=73237639334828
I am 2 out of 3.
Printed today:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060308/REPOSITORY/603080362/1029/OPINION03
Good one!
Quote from: Dreepa on March 08, 2006, 07:12 AM NHFT
I am 2 out of 3.
Printed today:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060308/REPOSITORY/603080362/1029/OPINION03
Very good Chris! No point in railing on any 'party' as I always say, government IS the problem! Period!
Sent this to the Sentinel
With regard to the state legislature's bill which would ban smoking in restaurants: I hope our reps from the Keene area will vote against it. If the state can decide what you put in your body in a restaurant that you own, then the state is to some extent running your business. How good is the state government at running a business? How much is it going to cost taxpayers to enforce?
Speaking of business...what is with these restaurant owners (some of them) who favor a government-forced smoke ban but still allow smoking in their restaurants because they don't have the guts to enact a no-smoking policy of their own? How unimpressive is that?
Personally I like nonsmoking restaurants better but let me make the choice, not Concord or any government.
Quote from: CNHT on March 08, 2006, 09:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on March 08, 2006, 07:12 AM NHFT
I am 2 out of 3.
Printed today:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060308/REPOSITORY/603080362/1029/OPINION03
Very good Chris! No point in railing on any 'party' as I always say, government IS the problem! Period!
Nice!
Here's a Union Leader article I think I may respond to...
although maybe i should write another lte about russell and kat
Prime cut: Halve the premiums tax
Friday, Mar. 17, 2006
CUTTING THE state?s insurance premium tax in half is a risky proposition, but one worth taking.
The state now charges insurance companies a 2 percent tax on all insurance premiums they collect. For any insurer based in New Hampshire, that tax is charged not just in New Hampshire, but throughout the country. As it is in effect a nationwide tax, it brings in serious money. If you?re an insurer, however, it takes away serious money.
Insurers consider a state?s premiums tax when considering where to locate their headquarters. The difference in a fraction of a percentage point can mean tens of millions of dollars for a company. If New Hampshire drops its rate from 2 percent to 1 percent, as House Bill 678 would do, its rate would be lower than that in 46 states. That would provide a powerful incentive for insurers to move to New Hampshire.
On Wednesday the House Ways and Means Committee approved the bill by a vote of 16-2, even though it would reduce state revenues by an estimated $32 million in the short run.
Wisely, the committee was more concerned with the long-run implications of the bill. Estimates of how many insurers would relocate to New Hampshire if the bill passes vary. An independent review by Ernst & Young reached lower numbers than an insurance industry study did. No surprise there.
If other states lower their rates, that might weaken the impact of a lowered rate in New Hampshire. But insurers are unpopular, and with states looking to raise more and more revenue from sources other than general taxes, it seems likely that more states would increase their rates over time rather than cut them. New Hampshire would be in a very enviable position if that happened.
Let?s cut this tax rate and closely watch what happens. Right now the state budget is in surplus, so it is a good time to take the gamble. If the benefits fully materialize, then the state brings in more jobs and more revenue than before. If fewer jobs than projected arrive, the rate can always be nudged back up, though it won?t be necessary to bring it all the way back to 2 percent. Either way, it?ll be a jobs-producing tax cut.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 17, 2006, 11:15 PM NHFT
Here's a Union Leader article I think I may respond to...
although maybe i should write another lte about russell and kat
Prime cut: Halve the premiums tax
Friday, Mar. 17, 2006
CUTTING THE state?s insurance premium tax in half is a risky proposition, but one worth taking.
That was pretty good. Would you write a LTE saying you agree with it? I'd write on something else if I was you, but it is all about what they will publish.
(This is for publication, if you wish)
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
With regard to your Feb. 9 article "Two arrested as protesters gather," I have an update. As you reported then, Manchester police arrested two Keene residents for carrying signs and refusing to be herded into a "Free Speech Zone" during President Bush's last visit. The demonstrators, Russell Kanning and Kat Dillon, declined to plea bargain at their initial hearing. So in the absence of schedule changes, their "Free Speech Trial" will be at 8:15 a.m. on April 5 at Manchester District Court, 35 Amherst St.
They make this sacrifice so you don't have to. But you are invited to a demonstration in their support, which will occur outside the courthouse at that time. Details are at NHfree.com, or you can call me: 603.721.1490.
Gandhi said "non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty." Manchester police, like the British troops Gandhi faced down, are not evil persons. But the practice of arresting individuals- simply for carrying a political sign in a public area where everyone else was allowed to be -.that practice *is* evil. It constitutes an assault upon one of the few freedoms Americans have left - the freedom of expression. New Hampshire officers should have no part in it.
From Pat McC in today's CM.
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060321/REPOSITORY/603210352/1029/OPINION03
Good questions from Pat.
Seems like the woman feels the rest of us should be supporting her kids. Everyone is entitled to 1.2 kids along with a free education and health care. Plus a car, free gas for that car and a college education if they whine enough. Right? :P
Also... for you out of towners.
It looks like the CM posts letters from out of towners on Sunday. You might want to submit late Wed or early Thursday.
And another one from me:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060323/REPOSITORY/603230336/1029/OPINION03
That makes 3 printed out of 4 sent.
Quote from: Dreepa on March 23, 2006, 07:15 AM NHFT
And another one from me:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060323/REPOSITORY/603230336/1029/OPINION03
That makes 3 printed out of 4 sent.
Wow you beat met to it! I was just going to post..
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060323/REPOSITORY/603230336/1029/OPINION03
Did anyone see mine this past Sunday in the UL?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 20, 2006, 04:56 PM NHFT
(This is for publication, if you wish)
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
With regard to your Feb. 9 article "Two arrested as protesters gather," I have an update. As you reported then, Manchester police arrested two Keene residents for carrying signs and refusing to be herded into a "Free Speech Zone" during President Bush's last visit. The demonstrators, Russell Kanning and Kat Dillon, declined to plea bargain at their initial hearing. So in the absence of schedule changes, their "Free Speech Trial" will be at 8:15 a.m. on April 5 at Manchester District Court, 35 Amherst St.
They make this sacrifice so you don't have to. But you are invited to a demonstration in their support, which will occur outside the courthouse at that time. Details are at NHfree.com, or you can call me: 603.721.1490.
Gandhi said "non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty." Manchester police, like the British troops Gandhi faced down, are not evil persons. But the practice of arresting individuals- simply for carrying a political sign in a public area where everyone else was allowed to be -.that practice *is* evil. It constitutes an assault upon one of the few freedoms Americans have left - the freedom of expression. New Hampshire officers should have no part in it.
I just wish the press had not ignored the original reason for their being there...............to wit, the ED CACR was just passed by the House! Hooray!
Good work guys
One thing that I've discovered is I get more mileage out of a letter if I have some event, action item or information source to which I can point people and keep them engaged after they're done with the LTE . For instance, "to fight this problem the Monitor has highlighted, we'll have a protest at such and such time, call me at such and such number for details or go to NHfree.com
it also helps more to talk up people and institutions that are good, than it does to attack people and institutions who are bad. Attacking the evil by name gives them and their ideas free publicity.
I do it too, but it's not the ideal.
Another LTE from me, this makes the 3rd I guess:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060326/REPOSITORY/603260359/1029/OPINION03
Um make that four:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/hampton/01312006/letters/85569.htm
I guess I don't even see most of the letters I get published...
Sent to Monitor
N.H. Senate should fight "Real ID"
Dear folks at the Monitor:
Regarding House Bill 1582, which would place New Hampshire in defiance of the hated Real ID act, history speaks to us.
Near the turn of the last century, British rulers attempted to impose similar, vexatious "identity papers" upon communities in South Africa. One group, the Indian minority, resisted - led by a middle-aged lawyer named Mohandas Gandhi. History remembers him as the Mahatma.
Gathering them in a meeting hall - perhaps the closest thing they had to our State House - Gandhi asked members of his community to swear an Oath, pledging that they would not submit to the identity Ordinance and would suffer all of the penalties attached to such peaceful resistance. He warned them of the risks they were taking.
"...It is not at all impossible," he said, "that we may have to endure every hardship that we can imagine...
"We may have to go to jail, where we may be insulted...Suffering from starvation and similar hardships...some of us may fall ill and even die."
But, he added: "If someone asks me when and how the struggle may end, I may say that if the entire community manfully stands the test, the end will be near. If many of us fall back under storm and stress, the struggle will be prolonged. But...so long as there is even a handful of men true to their pledge, there can be only one end to the struggle, and that is victory."
There followed a seven-year conflict in which thousands of Indians including Gandhi were jailed, flogged, or even shot, for refusing to register, burning their identity cards and and other peaceful resistance. But by 1915 they had won.
How much smaller the risks we face in resisting today, and how much higher the stakes, as almost 300 million Americans stand at the edge of an *abyss.* Authorities are birthing a system that would allow the rise of a police state in America. This nation, maybe more than you realize, looks to New Hampshire for inspiration and for leadership. They look to us to say "no" when no is the only moral thing that can be said.
I urge our state senators to say no to de-facto Federal ID, and *yes* to HB1582, which pledges our peaceful non-cooperation with this modern equivalent of a British occupier, Washington D.C.
Another one for me:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060406/REPOSITORY/604060352/1029/OPINION03
Cool :)
Sent one to the Union Leader on 4/6 about real id rally.
Here's the one I sent to the UL
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
On Saturday, April 22 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., somewhere between 50 and 300 supporters of a courageous and inspiring piece of legislation will rally outside the State House in Concord. House Bill 1582 would say "no" to the Federal government's hated "Real ID" scheme.
Real ID is an attempt to make you carry an expensive, Federally-approved identification card in place of your current, less-expensive driver's license. Costs aside, the new card has the potential to track your every move and would place your personal info into a Fed database.
Fortunately, the New Hampshire House...led by Rep. Neal Kurk of Weare...has voted to *defy* Washington and keep our state out of the Real ID system. His bill would save us millions of dollars and help preserve *your* privacy. It may also result in unforseen hardships for each of us, for Washington will surely direct some bureaucratic retaliation our way if we do not submit.
Join us on April 22. Let our senators know if they stand firm against Washington, you will stand with them. For details call 721.1490 or head to NHfree.com
sent to Monitor
(for publication if you wish)
Dear Folks at the Monitor:
I wanted to thank you for your good coverage of the anti-Real-ID rally that happened on the 22nd in Concord. There were 170 people there but you were the only mainstream media that attended; that's strange! However I'm glad to see your stories have triggered coverage from the major national media. This is possibly the biggest privacy story of the year, and hardly anyone has been telling it until this week.
Feds want to track and number us like animals, State Senator Gatsas thinks that is just fine and is eager to let them, but the people of this state and most of our elected officials are saying DON'T YOU DARE.
On Wednesday, in the absence of changes, our state senate votes on a bill which would keep N.H. OUT of the near-apocalyptic Real ID system. If you want to make sure New Hampshire never puts your personal information into a Fed database, never makes it available to thousands of government workers, hackers and identity thieves...call your state senator and tell them this:
Vote "yes" in favor of N.H. House Bill 1582, the "Real ID Rejection Act."
You can reach the Senators at 271-2111 and leave your senator a message. If you don't know who your senator is, call me at 721-1490, and if possible I'll find out for you. If you can, come to the State House for the vote on Wednesday and join conservatives, libertarians and liberals alike as we make our presence felt in the Senate gallery. Call me with any questions, or find the details at GraniteStateID.com
Short but sweet.
Dear Editor,
The Real ID Act will initiate a national ID card, which you will need to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. It will be an electronically readable version of your driver's license carrying your personal information, such as name, address, SSN, driving record, birth date, sex, digital photo, biometric information, and other requirements Home Land Security can add, such as fingerprints and a retinal scan. This information will reside in a national database, the largest single repository for personal information ever created, which will be accessible to all other states.
Washington is offering us 3 million dollars to get the program started, but conservative estimates put the total cost of implementing the program at about 12 million. That's 9 million dollars in additional taxes that we will have to pay to put this program in place. The New Hampshire senate is going to be voting on a bill that will keep New Hampshire from participating in the Real ID act. If a national ID card concerns you, then call your senator and ask them to vote yes to HB1582. For more information on this bill visit www.GraniteStateID.com.
And the longer version...
Your papers, please! Just a line from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? It might not be if the Real ID Act takes effect in New Hampshire. Piggy backed on a military spending bill last year, the Real ID Act will initiate a national ID card, which you will need to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. It will be an electronically readable version of your driver's license carrying your personal information, such as name, address, SSN, driving record, birth date, sex, digital photo, biometric information, and other requirments Home Land Security can add as they see fit, such as fingerprints and a retinal scan. This information will reside in a national database, the largest single repository for personal information ever created, which will be accesible to all other states, and if you think this database will be hacker-proof, think again.
So why does Washington want to impliment the Real ID? For our saftey and to make finding terrorists easier. How hasn't really been explained all that well. All the 9-11 hijackers had valid ID. So how would this realy protect us? It wouldn't, only allow the government as a whole more micro managing powers to control our lives even more. Easy Pass can be used by police to see when you pass through tolls. No one mentioned that when it was pitched to New Hampshire residents. There is a great deal of discussion about putting an RFID chip in the licenses when Real ID takes effect. How easily can we be tracked then, if Easy Pass can already tell police where we are? Intended uses rarely stay only as intended, especially when the government is involved.
Would you like to know how much this great new ID would cost us in additional taxes? Washington is offering us 3 million dollars to get the program started, but conservative estimates put the total cost of implimenting the program at about 12 million. That's 9 million dollars in additional taxes that we will have to pay to put this program in place. The New Hampshire senate is going to be voting on a bill that will keep New Hampshire from participating in the Real ID act. If a national ID card concerns you, then call your senitor and ask them to vote yes to HB1582. For more information on this bill visit www.GraniteStateID.com.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on April 28, 2006, 10:22 PM NHFT
sent to Monitor
(for publication if you wish)
Dear Folks at the Monitor:
I wanted to thank you for your good coverage of the anti-Real-ID rally that happened on the 22nd in Concord. There were 170 people there but you were the only mainstream media that attended; that's strange! However I'm glad to see your stories have triggered coverage from the major national media. This is possibly the biggest privacy story of the year, and hardly anyone has been telling it until this week.
Feds want to track and number us like animals, State Senator Gatsas thinks that is just fine and is eager to let them, but the people of this state and most of our elected officials are saying DON'T YOU DARE.
On Wednesday, in the absence of changes, our state senate votes on a bill which would keep N.H. OUT of the near-apocalyptic Real ID system. If you want to make sure New Hampshire never puts your personal information into a Fed database, never makes it available to thousands of government workers, hackers and identity thieves...call your state senator and tell them this:
Vote "yes" in favor of N.H. House Bill 1582, the "Real ID Rejection Act."
You can reach the Senators at 271-2111 and leave your senator a message. If you don't know who your senator is, call me at 721-1490, and if possible I'll find out for you. If you can, come to the State House for the vote on Wednesday and join conservatives, libertarians and liberals alike as we make our presence felt in the Senate gallery. Call me with any questions, or find the details at GraniteStateID.com
This posted today (may 2)
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060502/REPOSITORY/605020342/1029/OPINION03
Nice.
Also Jim Perry had one on Friday April 28th anti real id.
I had another one in about voter fraud, the Kerry-paid Geoff Wetrosky and his voting scandal, and how nothing is being done about it by the illustrious Bud Fitch, on Sunday.
It even prompted an angry call from one Ray Buckley, who apparently used to be a State Rep. He was upset that this would appear in the mainstream media as he claims Wetrosky did not commit a crime by living in SD but voting here. Say what??? He could not also reckon with the fact that a town, in cahoots with certain people wanting more spending, got away with fining a group in Bedford $5,000 which was paid, just to prevent them from putting up the normal election signs.
The town officials claimed that WLMW 90.7 was commercial when no commercial station exists there, or would be allowed to on that band number!!!
He did not like the fact that the firefighters union was committing a compelled speech violation by even HAVING a phone bank, that was supposedly jammed and for which one my friends spent 7 months in max security prison! If this is what warranted that kind of punishment, Wetrosky deserves therefore, nothing less than a public flogging for blatantly stealing a vote.
It is further frustrating to be listening to the Senate now, and some member got up and pronounced that there was no voter fraud in NH ? when we all know it is rampant and this is how Kerry/Lynch won...same day registrants who used addresses THAT DO NOT EVEN EXIST.
Quote from: CNHT on May 04, 2006, 11:56 AM NHFT
He was upset that this would appear in the mainstream media as he claims Wetrosky did not commit a crime by living in SD but voting here.
Is the guy dense? Live there, vote here. Interesting.
Is anything ever going to happen about this?
Quote from: Dreepa on May 04, 2006, 12:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on May 04, 2006, 11:56 AM NHFT
He was upset that this would appear in the mainstream media as he claims Wetrosky did not commit a crime by living in SD but voting here.
Is the guy dense? Live there, vote here. Interesting.
Is anything ever going to happen about this?
His argument was, well the cops did nothing to Wetrosky. It is not the police's purview, it should be the AG's office, namely Bud Fitch, who prosecutes this and it won't happen unless we raise a fuss. They would rather rehash ad naseum, the phone jamming thing, which is gone by, punished, etc!
But if you check, there are over 500 hits in Google for that and 25 about Wetrosky but we are working on getting more in there!
People need to get outraged. I had sent that LTE April 11 and it was just printed this Sunday.
This article needs a rebuttal! - http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060505/OPINION02/60505003/-1/OPINION01
Real ID Act necessary for national security
Stephen Rohm, Nashua
Published: Friday, May. 5, 2006
I believe The Telegraph editorial, ?State should contest national ID card law,? published on April 28 is, in its title alone, a prime example of ?yellow journalism.?
Each state has the sovereign right to decide who does and does not operate a motor vehicle. Other states extend this privilege and trust by recognizing another state?s license.
The only change the federal government seems to require with the Real ID Act is that an applicant not have broken a federal law by sneaking into our country, lying about their purpose for being here or ?disappearing? when their visa expires.
Are we one of 50 states making up the greatest country in history or are we so intent on doing things ?our way? that we will refuse to do ?the greatest good for the greatest number? (re: the definition of democracy)?
Question: How many of the 19 9/11 terrorists had driver?s licenses? Answer: All of them. Some had more than one.
While a few of these misguided maniacs were here legally and had legal licenses, there weren?t enough to pull off a horrific stunt of this magnitude had states been a little more scrupulous in their screening.
While no one can predict what these blasphemers of their own religion will do next, I shudder at the thought that they might do it under the guise of a New Hampshire driver?s license because it was easy to get.
Rejecting the Real ID Act on the basis that it violates ?civil liberties? presupposes these illegal aliens are a righteous part of the American society and are therefore entitled to the same rights as those who obey the rule of law. If this is the case, then there is no law at all.
One of the many problems our law enforcement people are hamstrung with is poor communication. Are we not telling all other 49 states that the bearer of a New Hampshire license is a law-abiding driver in our state? Do we want to do that if the bearer broke the law to come to our country and simply passed a driver?s test?
Furthermore, to compare a valid screening for a state driver?s license with a national ?Health Security Card? as proposed by the then president-in-waiting Hillary Clinton is simply ridiculous.
If the other states are awaiting New Hampshire?s lead ? then I say lead ? do the right thing and refuse to issue licenses to people who will lie and cheat to get into America and then demand their ?civil liberties.?
If only one in 1 million are of the same ilk as Mohammed Atta and his 18 toadies, then we already have enough to repeat the tragedy of 9/11.
---end---
And here is my LTE - which will be my 7th published if that pledgebank thingy is counting. ;D (Does it count double if a State Rep calls you and yells at you?)
To the editor,
The article "Real ID Act necessary for national security" by Stephen Rohm of Nashua which was published Friday, May 5, 2006 claims that the Telegraph's article entitled "State should contest national ID card law," is 'yellow journalism'.
There are many of us who disagree and in fact, a majority of the NH House of Representatives passed a law to keep NH out of this Act. Many other groups also coalesced under the same idea including the National Governor's Association. Our own Governor Lynch (D) said he'd sign any bill that kept us out as well.
As for Rohm's main contention that it would help stem terrorism by keeping illegals out of the country, it is a well known fact that in NH we have thousands of 'undocumented' working here peacefully and who have never been bothered. Last year when Chief of Police G. Chamberlain from New Ipswich caught a few in some minor traffic violations, the ICE said it had no interest in deportation procedures. So how would a National ID help?
The cruel fact is, we are in the process of Globalization and the forces that are behind this process do not want to interfere with anything that will cause unrest, and rob countries of their sovereignty and put them under international law, thus nullifying our Constitution. This has already been done, to an extent, with the governance by treaties we have signed with the UN, another thing we should concentrate on opting out of as soon as possible, as a state, if not a nation.
Furthermore, the phrase 'yellow journalism' is wrongly used by Rohm. It usually refers to untruths. The piece in the Telegraph was not an untruth; it was an opinion that was not only 'right on' in attitude, but based on facts and ideas held by a majority of groups around the state and the nation as well.
What Conn was to Kelo, NH is to Real ID.
---end---
It might be worth mentioning that some of these so-called hijackers have popped up in their respective Arab countries wondering why they were accused of the whole 9-11 thing. Obviously they're still alive! This whole terrorist getting ID thing is the usual crutch that is utilized to support the national ID.
Tunga saved this from Fox news back in Feb. of aught two.
Tuesday, February 12, 2002 MEMPHIS, Tenn. - A driver's license examiner charged in a scheme with some Middle Eastern men to sell fraudulent licenses died the day before her first court appearance in a fiery car wreck prosecutors called "most unusual and suspicious." Forensics tests were being performed on Katherine Smith's car to determine what caused the fire, FBI spokesman George Bolds said Tuesday. "We're looking at everything ... whether it was an accident, whether it was a suicide or whether it was something else," said Bolds, who would not specifically discuss the possibility of explosives. The FBI also said it is investigating whether Smith's five co-defendants have connections to the Sept. 11 attacks or other terrorist ties. Smith, 49, was killed early Sunday. The 1992 Acura Legend she was driving ran off the road and struck a utility pole just north of the Mississippi state line, Highway Patrol Lt. Col. Mark Fagan said. Smith's car "was immediately engulfed in flames," but authorities do not know whether the fire started before or after the crash, Fagan said. The body was so badly burned it took authorities until Tuesday to confirm Smith's identity. The cause of death remains under investigation. FBI agent J. Suzanne Nash said the gas tank did not explode and the car was only slightly dented from the crash. Prosecutor Tim DiScenza called the crash "most unusual and suspicious." Smith was one of six people charged last week by federal officials with conspiracy to get Tennessee driver's licenses under false pretenses. She had been scheduled for arraignment on Monday. Also charged were Khaled Odtllah, 31, Sakhera Hammad, 24, Mohammed Fares, Mostafa Said Abou-Shahin and Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad. Authorities did not give ages for the last three and said they admitted being in the country illegally. The case broke last week when authorities staked out the driver's license office where Smith worked on a tip from the FBI in New York that several illegal immigrants from the Middle East were traveling to Memphis to illegally obtain state IDs, Nash said. Smith, an examiner for nine years, told authorities that Odtllah was a friend who had asked her to help him obtain driver's licenses six or seven times, Nash said. Nash said that when Sakhera Hammad was arrested, investigators found a visitor's pass for the World Trade Center, dated Sept. 5, 2001, in his wallet. He told authorities he was a plumber who worked on the center's sprinkler system. He said Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad was a cousin who worked with him, Nash said. Federal authorities learned that Odtllah drove to Memphis from New York City on Sept. 11, Nash said. Anthony Helm, attorney for Odtllah, asked Nash in court: "You certainly don't have any indication any of these fellows is a terrorist, do you?" "Not at this time, no sir," Nash said. A hearing for Abou-Shahin, Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad and Fares is scheduled for Wednesday. Odtllah and Sakhera Hammad remain held without bond until their trial.
Quote from: Dreepa on May 04, 2006, 12:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on May 04, 2006, 11:56 AM NHFT
He was upset that this would appear in the mainstream media as he claims Wetrosky did not commit a crime by living in SD but voting here.
Is the guy dense? Live there, vote here. Interesting.
Is anything ever going to happen about this?
Check this article! It's an outrage!
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Curtailing+voter+fraud%3A+Lynch+passes+up+the+chance&articleId=35237926-0d07-4a95-b6d6-fe9072d9b0df
Maybe Lauren and Jim can let Ed and Jane borrow the Nazi outfits.
"Papers Please"-CNHT
Quote from: dead president on May 10, 2006, 10:16 AM NHFT
Maybe Lauren and Jim can let Ed and Jane borrow the Nazi outfits.
"Papers Please"-CNHT
We already have the papers that show he voted wrongly while living in S Dakota, unless you like the idea of tax and spender communists from Mass/NY/Vt having free reign in our elections while the anti-gov crowd would be immediately prosecuted for the same thing?
If you suggest we don't vote legally, then you are working for the 'other side' sorry! Seems we have a lot of shills for the nwo on this board...what a shame.
Too bad we can't get all the 3,000 to move here 'in their minds', vote in each town election and then go back home. We would surely roll back gov't then in any one of those elections...I'm willing to put people up in my home who 'intend' to live here and want to same-day register....but it must be done en masse. Then let Fitch squirm.
>:( >:( >:(
So you see Dreepa we have morons like this sabotaging the movement because they love to call the people within it racists and nazis and sit back and do nothing while the statists vote illegally.
Sent below to Sentinel and to Sen. Eaton, will plan to read it into the national reps and senators' voicemails:
In a craven act of subservience to Washington, a majority of the N.H. Senate (including Eaton of Keene) have voted to defang the "Real ID Resistance Bill." This bill would have prevented N.H. from going along with Bush's defacto national identity card. Now the legislation is in limbo.
This was a hollow victory for Federal lobbyists whose goal is to brand and track New Hampshire citizens like animals. But many more battles will follow, and if we the people maintain our momentum and resolve, we will win in the end.
To paraphrase one of history's more colorful figures:
Though large tracts of America, and many old and famous freedoms, have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Homeland Security Department and all the odious apparatus of authoritarian rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, peaceably but ever growing in activity and resolve. In this manner, we shall fight in New Hampshire, we shall fight on the sidewalks and streetcorners,
we shall fight with growing confidence and strength on the airwaves. We shall defend our Island of freedom, whatever the cost may be; we shall fight in the papers; we shall fight in the Legislature. We shall fight in the offices of our rulers and on their phone lines; we shall never surrender. And even if this state or a large part of it were subjucated and under the thrall of a surveillance regime, her core
resisters, armed and guarded by the simple principles of liberty, would carry on the struggle until, until, in God's good time, a new generation, with all the power and might of youth, steps forth to the rescue and liberation of the old.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 11, 2006, 08:45 AM NHFT
craven
Dada, I love it. You are so eloquent! I am imagining that any woman you pursue would be putty in your hands thanks to such command of the English language as you possess!
Yeah, this rivals anything the Founders ever wrote.
Speaking of LTE's our own LL had a good one in the Telegraph, an opinion piece.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060511/
OPINION02/60511005/-1/SPORTS
Real ID Act is more government snooping
Llalania Marble, Brookline
Published: Thursday, May. 11, 2006
Your papers, please! Just a line from Indiana Jones and the Last
Crusade? It might not be if the Real ID Act takes effect in New
Hampshire.
Piggybacked on a military spending bill last year, the Real ID Act
will initiate a national ID card, which you will need to travel on an
airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or
take advantage of nearly any government service.
It will be an electronically readable version of your driver?s
license carrying your personal information, such as name, address,
Social Security number, driving record, birth date, sex, digital
photo, biometric information, and other requirements Homeland
Security can add as they see fit, such as fingerprints and a retinal
scan.
This information will reside in a national database, the largest
single repository for personal information ever created, which will
be accessible to all other states, and if you think this database
will be hacker-proof, think again.
So why does Washington want to implement the Real ID? For our safety
and to make finding terrorists easier. How hasn?t really been
explained all that well.
All the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID. So how would this really protect
us? It wouldn?t, only allow the government as a whole more
micromanaging powers to control our lives even more.
E-ZPass can be used by police to see when you pass through tolls. No
one mentioned that when it was pitched to New Hampshire residents.
There is a great deal of discussion about putting an RFID chip in the
licenses when Real ID takes effect. How easily can we be tracked
then, if E-ZPass can already tell police where we are?
Intended uses rarely stay only as intended, especially when the
government is involved.
Would you like to know how much this great new ID would cost us in
additional taxes? Washington is offering us $3 million to get the
program started, but conservative estimates put the total cost of
implementing the program at about $12 million. That?s $9 million
dollars in additional taxes that we will have to pay to put this
program in place.
I'm surprised the Telegraph actually printed it. Aren't they the socialists?
Quote from: FSP-Rebel on May 11, 2006, 02:45 PM NHFT
I'm surprised the Telegraph actually printed it. Aren't they the socialists?
Yep....but....most papers supported HB 1582 so perhaps they did too, not sure if they had anything in it about that.
Sometimes if they think it's a Bush thing, they will oppose it on principle. So sometimes we can make partisanship foolishness work for us.
Hopefully our folks realize that the two party scam was made up to keep people fighting each other and not looking past that to see who the real enemy is.
It's all about controlling the conflict.
Quote from: FSP-Rebel on May 11, 2006, 03:01 PM NHFT
It's all about controlling the conflict.
Well, when you use the same tactics as the enemy, (like using political correctness to control a discussion or to prevent a discussion) then you must BE the enemy, or at least, enabling the enemy.
I was referring to the two party system. It's a typical Skull n' Bones ploy to play both sides of the fence. People will get sick of one and think that they have a viable alternative in the other.
Quote from: FSP-Rebel on May 11, 2006, 03:23 PM NHFT
I was referring to the two party system. It's a typical Skull n' Bones ploy to play both sides of the fence. People will get sick of one and think that they have a viable alternative in the other.
Yes exactly, and the racist card is using one of their tactics to divide and conquer.
will plan to send this on june 2 since last one to them went out may 2.
---
Dear folks at the Monitor:
I enjoyed your article on May 14 about the deepening state of gridlock between our state reps and state senators. The Senate's shameless and duplicitous neutering of the "Real ID Resistance Bill" has already cost them heavily. It will likely cost them more before the story is over.
These folks in the Senate leadership...what are they thinking??
If their actions are any indication, they?re thinking it is okay to help the FedGov number and track N.H. citizens like inventory. They?re thinking if they candy coat or hide their support for Real ID we won't notice. They?re thinking that whining about State Rep Neal Kurk will generate sympathy for them. And they?re thinking they can stop him from destroying their powermongering nanny-bills by putting his picture up on a billboard.
But *I?m* thinking they are *losing it.*
When it comes to pictures, the most appropriate image I can think of would look something like this: It would feature all 14 senators who voted to cooperate with the Feds in the privacy-killing Real ID scheme. It would show their names and faces clearly. And it would be a WANTED poster.
2 more LTEs from undergrounders.
One from Matt on Sunday and one from me today.
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3794.0;topicseen
Sent to KFP
Plainfield couple refused to bankroll torture
Dear folks at the Free Press:
I wanted to touch base regarding the two New Hampshire tax protesters arrested in
late May - Elaine and Ed Brown of Plainfield. The Feds took them into custody around
May 24 for openly refusing to pay the Federal income tax.
I don't know them that well, but if their recent actions are any indication, they
are better people than most. For the last 10 years they have openheartedly refused
to fund torture, welfare and IRS witch hunts. They have refused to send their perfectly
good money to the perfectly harmful "Internal Robbery Squadron." Heck,
they even wrote *letters* to the agents explaining what they were doing (civil disobedience)
and why. During that time 60% of us have tamely allowed the Feds to take our our
money and use it for increasingly sinister purposes.
It's disturbing to see that (according to the Concord Monitor) our state police
have cooperated with Federal officials in their persecution of the Browns. There
are, presumably, legitimate and even heroic things our troopers do, but - if they
are really acting as Federal lackeys on this - it's a disgrace. Apparently the
people who run the state police think of themselves as government officials first,
New Hampshire citizens second. Plainfield and Lebanon cops apparently were complicit
as well if the Monitor article is correct.
I look forward to the day when local and state officials refuse to assist the Feds
in such activity. And I pray Ed and Elaine Brown will prevail against those powerful
and dangerous forces whose primary loyalty is to Washington. Their trial is on July 18; they could use your support - find out the latest news about them and ways you can help their cause by visiting the forums at NHfree.com.
I hope
the Feds do not make any kind of net profit on this endeavor. We've all seen what
they do with the money they get: On a good day they waste it; on a bad day they
torture with it. And all the days in between they try to force you, me and the
Browns be a part of the problem.
Sending this to the Conn. Vall. Spectator in Lebanon shortly
letters@cvspectator.com
Dear folks at the Spectator:
I wanted to express my displeasure regarding the Federal arrest of Plainfield tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown in late May. For ten years, the Browns have openheartedly refused to bankroll torture, welfare and IRS witch hunts. They had even written the IRS itself, announcing what they were doing and why.
Now this reviled organization wants their money, so it can fund more abuses in Iraq, more disarmament of hurricane victims and more costly gray compounds in our cities.
God bless Ed and Elaine for refusing to go along.
But is it true that Lebanon P.D. and and state police assisted Federal agents in arresting them? This allegation comes both from Brown himself and from newspaper accounts, though I was unable to obtain verification from State Police H.Q. If they did aid and abet this unconscionable arrest, that is wrong. Our police and troopers should search their souls before doing it again. They are supposed to serve us, not Washington and its "Internal Robbery Squadron."
Nice one Dada.
Sent today to CV Spectator in Lebanon area
Dear folks at the Spectator:
I wanted to express my displeasure regarding the Federal arrest of Plainfield tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown in late May. For ten years, the Browns have openheartedly refused to bankroll torture, welfare and IRS witch hunts. They had even written the IRS itself, announcing what they were doing and why.
Now this universally reviled organization wants their money, so it can fund more abuses in Iraq, more disarmament of innocent hurricane victims and more costly gray compounds in our cities.
God bless the Browns for refusing to go along with that.
But is it true that Lebanon P.D. and and state police assisted Federal agents in arresting them? This allegation comes both from Brown himself and from newspaper accounts, though I was unable to obtain verification from State Police H.Q. If they did aid and abet this unconscionable arrest, that is wrong. Our police and troopers should search their souls before doing such a thing again. They are supposed to serve us, not Washington bureaucrats.
sent the Monitor LTE june 7
Dear folks at the Sentinel:
With regard to your June 26 article "Drug deaths spike in N.H.," I have questions.
The state bureaucrats you quote seem very eager to express to us the extent to which drug deaths are up since 1995. But aren't they (and other government officials) the ones to whom we have expensively delegated the task of "stopping drugs?" How good a job have they done with the millions they have taken from taxpayers?
How does the per capita drug death rate today compare with that of 1900, when there were *no* drug-fighting bureaucracies, when heroin was a widely prescribed pain medication and soft drinks contained cocaine? How many drug-related shootouts were there on our streets back then? How many gang executions and baseball bat murders?
Is it possible that the war on drugs has increased our nation's drug woes and those of our state? Is it possible that curtailing the former may curtail the latter, as it has in Holland? Is it likely that any of the reigning drug bureaucrats will admit this, when their jobs depend on continuing their war against our freedom to decide what does and doesn't go into our own bodies?
will be sending this to
letters@unionleader.com <mailto:letters@unionleader.com>.
Real ID: Where are the Churches?
At the big Concord rally against Real ID this spring, all kinds of groups came together. Liberals, libertarians and conservatives, all united in their desire to keep Washington from branding and tracking New Hampshirites with an Orwellian identity card. But churches and religious organizations were not much in evidence at the rally, nor do they seem to be in the fight yet.
This makes no sense.
Devout Christians, and Bible-believing pastors in particular, are the natural enemy of Real ID. Its people-tracking potential brings us even closer than we already are to a "Mark of the Beast" system.
"And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
Revelation 13:17
Good Christian people: We are at least two thirds of the way to a fulfillment of this prophecy. At the critical moment, will you watch from the Colosseum benches as libertarians lead this charge against the Beast, or will you join the fight?
If the former, may your chains rest lightly upon you. If the latter, call me at (603) 721-1490 or come to the NHfree.com forums and join us there as we organize, with or without you, our continuing opposition to this Mark precursor.
I am a little shocked to see the Christians sitting on the sidelines on this one. I swear, they only make a peep if the topics of abortion or gay rights get brought up. I wonder what God will have to say to these so-called christians (on judgement day) that allow their brethren to be given the mark of the beast (government) or those who do nothing to prevent their brothers from being enslaved (in all of its fashions). They can sit back and be a bunch of pussies with their thumbs up their a$$es, but they will have alot of explaining to do at some point. Like Dada says, may their chains rest lightly upon them.
First
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060706/REPOSITORY/607060346&SearchID=73250231160403
then this
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060710/REPOSITORY/607100319/1029/OPINION03
Good response, Dreepa!
Quote from: Scott Roth on July 10, 2006, 07:31 PM NHFT
Most pastors and preachers would make their churches lose their tax status if they were to show up at a rally like that. Sorry to say that, but it is the truth.
Garrett Lear doesn't worry about that. :)
Quote from: Scott Roth on July 10, 2006, 07:39 PM NHFT
Others do, unfortunately Pat.
Yep, I noticed that your post said "most pastors and preachers" but had to post about Garrett.
Will send this to the Monitor:
Thanks for your article about Independence Day and about the risks our Founders took to secure liberty. However when we look at what has happened since, how much of that liberty remains?
Even in New Hampshire, we cannot legally choose what to put into our own bodies nor easily travel without identity cards which, if the Feds have their way, will soon become much harder to renew. We can't fully participate in the economy without submitting a number by which Washington (and the occasional stalker) can track us. We can't keep more than two thirds of our income without risk of punishment or demonstrate in public places near presidential motorcades. We *can* be jailed for "crimes" that endanger no one, *can* have our land taken by authorities without having done wrong, and *can* face arrest for video/audiotaping police in our own homes. Our Colonial ancestors, living under British rule, had more freedom than this!
People say it's radical to look at things that way. But if the men you applauded in your article were alive today...John Adams, George Washington, they would not be writing "radical" letters to the editor. They would be doing something much more radical than you or I will probably ever advocate. They would be in the woods, fighting.
This goes to the sentinel next week as soon as my one month limit is up.
----
With regard to your July 16, 2006 article "Traffic is down at Manchester airport," well the folks who run the airport, and their masters in Washington, are lucky anyone flies at all in light of the continuing, costly police state approach plaguing every air hub now. Manchester's terminal is less bad than most, but the "Freedom to Travel" is tenuous there as well if you want to maintain your privacy or refuse a government ID card.
What do we have to show for the billions of taxpayer dollars and centuries of human life wasted in ineffective, intrusive searches and security protocols? Since 9/11 how much damage have we done to ourselves that the terrorists could never have dreamed of inflicting, simply by expending so much of our sustenance on the TSA? Aren't those the same people who are making it so hard for our pilots to arm themselves?
If you want more traffic at Manchester, relax security there, but let every pilot bring a gun! Okay, I realize that is not really going to happen.
But one simple thing airport boosters *could* do is advertise the little known fact that you do not technically have to have a government ID to board. You just have to submit to a more rigorous screening, arrive very early and be ready to go to jail rather than take no for an answer! This was what we learned when Keene resident Russell Kanning tried to board without an ID last year. They stopped him but would have let him through if he had agreed to the super-search.
If Manchester Airport were to make known their understanding and recognition of a right to fly without ID, and make it easier to do, that would draw new customers away from Logan. Manch could become the airport of choice for people without ID.
There are surely a thousand better ideas where this one came from, but most would probably violate the TSA's "secret laws." We not in charge of our own facilities. Washington is, and that place is hell-bent on finishing the job Al Qaeda started, the mission to punish every American traveler for the crimes of a few Saudi fanatics.
(final version, sent to monitor)
Dear folks at the Monitor:
Thanks for your coverage of the Legislature's Fiscal Committee and the attempt by its members to help Washington inflict an expensive "Real ID" card on every New Hampshire citizen.
If you like the idea of fumbling for identity papers you've never needed before, if you're cool with an extra hour of waiting at the DMV, if you have no problem parting with the privacy-friendly features of the New Hampshire driver's license or paying higher fees....you should be happy with their vote to accept the "Real ID sucker money."
You have to wonder what is going on here. The only people in-state who seem to favor compliance with Real ID are a few dozen mid-level politicians and bureaucrats. There are apparently no citizens groups or average people clamoring for it, none or near none have ever testified in its favor at any House or Senate hearing; hundreds have rallied and testified against it.
And yet some unseen force continues to slip Real ID compliance through the wall of citizen objections. It is, presumably, a Federal force, since Real ID has almost no support from New Hampshire citizenry. Does this force use threats or enticement to get its way? How does it maintain such gravity, while remaining largely unseen? What will this force do to us if it brushes our remaining defenders aside, or co-opts them? How will it behave if it acquires the power, already authorized by Washington, to place radio transmitters into our licenses?
What would become of those of us who, abandoned by our state government, are compelled to fight on alone, resisting individually or in private groups the one threat our state officials really have the power to protect us from, that of Federal tyranny?
Fortunately there are several lines of defense Washington must still breach within our state government before it can loose itself against you and me in this context. The next is the Governor, who has pledged to resist Real ID and has the power to do so by keeping the issue off the table at Executive Council meetings. If he places the issue before the Council, that is a good sign he's cracking. Let's pray Lynch does not flinch!
sent to union leader
In your Aug. 9 article on Real ID, you quoted DMV Director-Bureaucrat Virginia Beecher parroting the same old Federal threats against New Hampshire. The Feds won't let our citizens on planes, she says. They won't let us into their ugly gray compounds, she claims. They'll treat us like a whole state full of outcasts if we don't bow before their attempt to destroy our relatively benign driver's license and replace it with their Orwellian, privacy-killing Real ID.
Why don't the Feds have the guts to make these threats themselves, publicly? Why do they operate from the shadows, through local puppets?
It's because they fear what may happen if they threaten us directly, that it will generate further backlash in public opinion and end their chance at imposing Real ID on the state. They also suspect that they must, to paraphrase Churchill, "defeat us in this island of freedom" or lose their shot at tracking the entire nation.
They certainly haven't defeated us yet. To impose Real ID, they must first successfully intimidate Governor Lynch into placing their demands and bribes before the Executive Council. Please give his office a ring at 271-2121 and urge him to keep Real ID off the Council agenda, that it may die of neglect before our freedoms do.
sent to keene state college paper
(Permission granted to publish)
Dear folks at the Equinox:
Some of your readers may be wondering about all the ruckus that has been going on at the post office / IRS office accross the street from KSC.
On July 27th a Keene resident, Russell Kanning, attempted to hand out leaflets to IRS officers working there, urging them to quit their jobs. Russell believes, rightly, that most of the programs funded by the "Internal Robbery Squadron" are unconstitutional and harmful to New Hampshire.
Homeland Security officers told Russell they would arrest him if he attempted to enter the IRS office, which sits on the second floor, though it was open to the public that day. They said he was free to hand out leaflets outside, but of course there are no IRS officers working outside.
So Russell defied their orders, walked toward the stairs and was promptly handcuffed and driven away by the Feds. Russell then refused to show up for his court hearing and on August 1 more Federal agents seized him from his Keene home. He has been in jail ever since.
So every Thursday at noon, demonstrators from NHfree.com and KSC have been gathering in front of the Main Street post office, the spot where Russell was first carted off, destined for a concrete and steel box. They carry signs which say things like "Free Russell Kanning" and "Hell Nay, We Won't Pay."
You are invited to join this little "Rebel Alliance;" though it is possible there will be some Thursdays where the demonstration does not occur. Give me a shout at 721-1490 if you'd like the latest details, or check the NHfree.com calendar.
Many thanks to the KSC students who have already been participating in these demonstrations. In an age dominated by Federal powermongering and abuse, you represent hope!
sent today
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
Thanks for your article on my run-in with Homeland Security. As Son Hoang reported, DHS wants to cite me after I petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. Basically I went into the Nashua IRS office in mid-September, silently handed two complaint leaflets to workers and held a sign reading: "Is it right to work 4 IRS?" They asked me to leave, which I did (very slowly!) with no plans to re-enter.
The heavy-handed Federal treatment of peaceful N.H. residents like Ed Brown and Russell Kanning inspired this protest. Normally I only do this stuff at state/local offices; folks there are usually just amused. Only Feds react with such defensiveness, something that simply generates more news coverage and protest.
If they want to curtail all this Constitutionally-endorsed petitioning and demonstrating around their N.H. offices, they do have the means to make that happen. Punishment won't work, but if they relax and quit throwing their weight around so much in New Hampshire, that should do the trick.
Dave Ridley
Keene
Will send this to the union leader in a week or so. I already sent one this month.
---
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
I read with angry interest your article about the N.H. Department of Motor Vehicles virtually forcing RV owners to obtain a static physical residence. While the DMV bureaucrats wring their hands and continue feeding motor-homers to the furnace, perhaps there is a thing or two us average people should do to help the RV folks.
Here is the small thing I can do: I can inform your readers that if they want to be able to register RV's in-state, but aren't allowed to for lack of a physical residence...they should visit the web forum at NHfree.com and let folks there know about thier plight. The place is packed with people who like to help make end runs around the bureaucracy. Hopefully one or more of us will be in a position to help you if you have the RV registration problem (or any other problem with the State). The dedicated thread for discussing N.H. RV registration is:
tinyurl.com/rycsr
See you there!
I sent this to the Union Leader just last week. I look forward to writing more....
Dear Editor,
I have heard time and time again that the State must define adequacy in education and provide or guarantee an adequate education, but upon reading the section of the NH State Constitution that applies to education, I find nothing that implies or suggests that the State must do any such thing.
NH State Constitution
Part II [Art.] 83. [Encouragement of Literature, etc.; Control of Corporations, Monopolies, etc.] Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people: Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination.
Our State Constitution says that the State must "cherish" education. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines cherish as "1 a : to hold dear : feel or show affection for b : to keep or cultivate with care and affection". Our State Constitution also says that the State must "encourage private and public institutions".
To cherish, cultivate and encourage are not a requirement to guarantee "adequate public education". As a matter of fact, the definition of adequacy needs to be determined locally by parents, educators, public and private schools and communities -- not the State.
LFoD
Quote from: castle_chaser on October 10, 2006, 08:13 AM NHFT
I sent this to the Union Leader just last week. I look forward to writing more....
Dear Editor,
I have heard time and time again that the State must define adequacy in education and provide or guarantee an adequate education, but upon reading the section of the NH State Constitution that applies to education, I find nothing that implies or suggests that the State must do any such thing.
NH State Constitution
Part II [Art.] 83. [Encouragement of Literature, etc.; Control of Corporations, Monopolies, etc.] Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people: Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination.
Our State Constitution says that the State must "cherish" education. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines cherish as "1 a : to hold dear : feel or show affection for b : to keep or cultivate with care and affection". Our State Constitution also says that the State must "encourage private and public institutions".
To cherish, cultivate and encourage are not a requirement to guarantee "adequate public education". As a matter of fact, the definition of adequacy needs to be determined locally by parents, educators, public and private schools and communities -- not the State.
LFoD
Superb. Thank you!
4 letters were published by Undergrounders in the past 3 days in the Concord Monitor:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=OPINION03
Check out Denis' letter.
Nice LTE Denis. 8)
Here is one from Ted "My passion is people - not politics..." Gatsas. He asks folks to give him a call...
"If you have any questions or issues you want to discuss, please contact me. I can be reached at 623-0220."
How about Real-ID Ted?
http://tinyurl.com/vjydw
I'm not familiar with any NH politician, but I did like this from Mr. Gatsas' letter:
QuoteIn the next two years there's a lot a stake. Already there is talk about a sales and income tax. This would spell disaster in New Hampshire. We have an economic edge over our neighboring states because of our tax-free status. We need to keep it that way. I have always taken a pledge against a sales and income tax, and that will never change.
Hopefully he actually means this?
still need to send this one
Dear folks at the Monitor:
Your readers are invited to a demonstration at the Federal building on 55 Pleasant St. in Concord: It will be a demonstration against torture and waste, the two things our Federal government is best known for. Bring a rattlesnake flag if you like, but mostly just bring *you!*
It will start at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, November 13. An hour and a half later I will enter the building to appear in court. I stand accused of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Specifically, Federal agents have cited me because I entered the Nashua IRS office last month and handed flyers to employees.
The leaflets reminded them that the money they seize from taxpayers funds waste and torture. They question the morality of working for the "Internal Robbery Squadron."
I've done maybe 20 silent demonstrations like this at various state and local bureaucracies; the folks there are usually just amused and shoo me off. Only the most powerful institution on earth reacts with such fear to these peaceful visits from its conscience.
If you'd like to know more about this situation, give me a shout at 721-1490 or drop by the NHfree.com forums, where this issue is under discussion. I hope to see you on the thirteenth!
Dave Ridley
Keene
are you actually going to argue a first amendment defense - the individual right held in common to the redress of greivances which are only allowed within right of ways owned in common (with other first amendment rights) and only within collectively owned buildings with the explicit purpose of receiving redress of greivance petitions?
for instance Charlie Bass, Jeb Bradley, John Sununu or Judd Gregg's offices here in NH as the war protestors did and then got arrested for remaining after hours in the office.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on October 30, 2006, 10:11 PM NHFT
for instance Charlie Bass, Jeb Bradley, John Sununu or Judd Gregg's offices here in NH as the war protestors did and then got arrested for remaining after hours in the office.
Except Dada left when asked.
Quote from: Dreepa on October 30, 2006, 11:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on October 30, 2006, 10:11 PM NHFT
for instance Charlie Bass, Jeb Bradley, John Sununu or Judd Gregg's offices here in NH as the war protestors did and then got arrested for remaining after hours in the office.
Except Dada left when asked.
the point is that his redress of greivances would have been received in those offices during business hours because it is the explicit purpose of those collectively owned buildings.
the protestors read outloud (excercising their individual common right to free speech) everyone of the dead soldiers names in Iraq while
IN the office of Bradley in Dover.
altered the LTE somewhat and sent the version below today.
---
Dear folks at the Monitor:
Your readers are invited to a demonstration at the Federal building on 55 Pleasant St. in Concord: It will be a protest against pretty much all things Federal, especially the torture and waste our rulers in Washington force you to underwrite. Bring a rattlesnake flag if you like, but mostly just bring *you!*
It will start at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, November 13. An hour and a half later I will enter the building to appear in their district court. I stand accused of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Specifically, Federal agents have cited me because I entered the Nashua IRS office last month and handed flyers to employees.
The leaflets reminded them that the money they seize from taxpayers funds waste and torture. They question the morality of working for the "Internal Robbery Squadron."
I've done maybe 20 silent demonstrations like this at various state and local bureaucracies; folks there are usually just amused and shoo me off. Only the most powerful institution on earth reacts with such fear to peaceful visits from its conscience.
If you'd like to know more about these events, give me a shout at 721-1490 or drop by the NHfree.com forums, where this issue is under discussion. I hope to see you on the thirteenth!
sent.
---
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
As the Union Leader's Son Huong reported in September, I've had some interesting interactions with the Department of Homeland Security lately. Their officers are attempting to fine me $125 because I peaceably petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. Specifically the charge is "distribution of handbills," after I entered the Nashua IRS office and handed flyers to employees. These flyers question the morality of serving an institution which funds torture and waste.
Since I haven't yet paid the fine, DHS has "invited" me to appear in Federal district court November 13. I will do so, after leading a demonstration outside the building. This will be a protest against the waste and torture Washington forces you and your loved ones to underwrite.
Readers are invited to attend the protest: It's at 9:00 a.m., 55 Pleasant St. in Concord: Bring a rattlesnake flag if you like, but mostly just bring *you!* You're also welcome to attend the courtroom proceedings 90 minutes later. Then maybe we'll go out for lunch. Or maybe *you* will go out for lunch without me while they will strap me to an ICBM!
If you'd like to know more, give me a shout at 721-1490 or drop by the NHfree.com forums. Hope to see you on the thirteenth!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 03, 2006, 09:47 AM NHFT
Or maybe *you* will go out for lunch without me while they will strap me to an ICBM!
I wouldn't miss this for the world. Karma to you!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 03, 2006, 05:47 AM NHFT
altered the LTE somewhat and sent the version below today.
---
Dear folks at the Monitor:
Was printed in the monitor today:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061105/REPOSITORY/611050377/1029/OPINION03
AWESOME! Karma to DADA!
Here's a Real ID LTE:
As a new resident, I looked forward to getting a New Hampshire driver's license and plates for my car with the state motto "Live Free or Die" on them. However, within the New Hampshire DMV, the motto has been revised to "Live free and show me your birth certificate, passport, old driver's license, marriage certificate, registration and social security number." Coming from a state where the only thing we need to have to get a license from out of state is a social security number or an old license, it made me wonder how this is free.
Getting a driver's license was meant to ensure people can drive, but recently has become a form of identification. Of even greater concern is the Real ID Act, which will turn all driver's licenses into a national ID card. This does nothing to make our streets safer as the more difficult it becomes to get a license, the more people will decide that it isn't worth the bother. The number of documents required by the DMV will increase, the already long lines will become longer, and the costs born by the state of New Hampshire and its citizens will rise intolerably.
Sincerely,
Rochelle
Quote from: Rochelle on November 09, 2006, 10:21 AM NHFT
Here's a Real ID LTE:
Way to go!
To which paper(s) did you submit it?
Thanks for composing this LTE Rochelle! I hope you'll build many more every time you get angry.
I just submitted it to the Union Leader, being that it's the local paper :)
to: castle_chaser
re: NH constitution / education funding
Beware the judiciary.
They rule from the top down, instead of the govt being ruled from the bottom up (by the people).
The NH constitution is the highest law in the state of NH. By definition, no law can be created in NH that conflicts with the NH constitution. That is what a constitution is.
The supreme court in other states routinely ignore their own constitutions. Instead of taking the time to convince a majority of its legislators to amend it, they ignore it, and rule by judicial fiat. THis makes us a nation of men, not laws.
RE: education funding.
In NJ, a state with 8M population, but the same area as NH, the justices just ignored a clause in the consitution that required the state to provide education for children only between the ages of 5-18. This was done to create state funded 'head-start' like programs on the state level for preschoolers.
You need to get to page 2 of this op-ed to get to the part that discusses it, but I recommend it as a harbinger of what can happen in NH, if the slippery slope is not stopped in its tracks NOW. Don't think for a minute it cannot happen here.
http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1162097090226220.xml&coll=1
This type of state mandate is what makes NJ unaffordable for many people, and they are fleeing to other states.
Quote from: pounaw on November 13, 2006, 07:54 AM NHFT
to: castle_chaser
re: NH constitution / education funding
Beware the judiciary.
They rule from the top down, instead of the govt being ruled from the bottom up (by the people).
The NH constitution is the highest law in the state of NH. By definition, no law can be created in NH that conflicts with the NH constitution. That is what a constitution is.
The supreme court in other states routinely ignore their own constitutions. Instead of taking the time to convince a majority of its legislators to amend it, they ignore it, and rule by judicial fiat. THis makes us a nation of men, not laws.
RE: education funding.
In NJ, a state with 8M population, but the same area as NH, the justices just ignored a clause in the consitution that required the state to provide education for children only between the ages of 5-18. This was done to create state funded 'head-start' like programs on the state level for preschoolers.
You need to get to page 2 of this op-ed to get to the part that discusses it, but I recommend it as a harbinger of what can happen in NH, if the slippery slope is not stopped in its tracks NOW. Don't think for a minute it cannot happen here.
http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1162097090226220.xml&coll=1
This type of state mandate is what makes NJ unaffordable for many people, and they are fleeing to other states.
Thanks for the info. I find government education to be a very interesting topic. I wonder why more families don't see clearly the fact that the education their children receive is very poor and in NH unconstitutional... "You get what you pay for" I know we pay in taxes..but it's fun to say that :)
QuoteTheir officers are attempting to fine me $125 because I peaceably petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. Specifically the charge is "distribution of handbills," after I entered the Nashua IRS office and handed flyers to employees. These flyers question the morality of serving an institution which funds torture and waste.
Since I haven't yet paid the fine, DHS has "invited" me to appear in Federal district court November 13. I will do so, after leading a demonstration outside the building. This will be a protest against the waste and torture Washington forces you and your loved ones to underwrite.
the irony of inviting people to protest on the collectively owned sidewalks that contain our common right of ways to free speech, free assembly and redress of greivances because there is no common right of way within the offices of collectively owned buildings...
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 17, 2006, 03:29 PM NHFT
the irony of inviting people to protest on the collectively owned sidewalks that contain our common right of ways to free speech, free assembly and redress of greivances because there is no common right of way within the offices of collectively owned buildings...
Little late on this Frank?
Eques' letter was printed on 1/11.
Also there are a few letters that were printed today that sounds like people who agree with many of us.
They should be contacted.
I guess I will start another thread for that.
Frivolous? Prove it
Chris Lopez, Concord
For the Monitor
January 30. 2007 8:00AM
I am a law-abiding citizen who pays her taxes. I do this, however, out of fear of recrimination. I cannot afford to be put in jail and am not educated enough to understand the tax laws.
What I want to know is, why report claims that "the law is ironclad and there is virtually (?) no way to undermine it in a legal tax battle?" Where are the facts?
Sites like givemeliberty.org have reports on a variety of recent legal wins, including court cases where the law has been debated and the individuals have been proven not guilty of income tax evasion! Look these up and make up your own mind.
How can lawyers and judges assert that the law is legal by simply stating that it is so? Why were the Browns not allowed to present their understanding of what the law is? Isn't the courtroom the perfect place for a "legal debate" of these laws?
I would like to see the facts presented in a courtroom. I wonder if there isn't something to the "frivolous arguments" that those 250,000 to 500,000 people believe in.
Why should I be afraid to question the law and its meaning? Why are juries being instructed by the judge on what the law is? Isn't there supposed to be some kind of check and balance there? Our juries have the right to be fully informed.
CHRIS LOPEZ
Concord
Why the wait?
Pat Mccotter, Concord
For the Monitor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30. 2007 8:00AM
The state Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution to say that the state must define and fund an adequate education.
The sections being used in the interpretation have been in the constitution since it was adopted in 1784. If the intent of the framers of this document was to define and fund an adequate education, wouldn't they have done that from the beginning?
PAT McCOTTER
Concord
Quote from: Pat McCotter on January 31, 2007, 05:29 PM NHFT
Why the wait?
Pat Mccotter, Concord
For the Monitor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30. 2007 8:00AM
The state Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution to say that the state must define and fund an adequate education.
The sections being used in the interpretation have been in the constitution since it was adopted in 1784. If the intent of the framers of this document was to define and fund an adequate education, wouldn't they have done that from the beginning?
PAT McCOTTER
Concord
You are so right on :icon_thumleft:
Quote from: Pat McCotter on January 31, 2007, 05:29 PM NHFT
If the intent of the framers of this document was to define and fund an adequate education, wouldn't they have done that from the beginning?
+1 million, Pat McCotter :)
-1 million, every legislator out there (they know who they are) that don't give a fig what that G.D. piece of paper says, especially if it stands in the way of them doing all the good they know they can do, using all the tools of the State at their disposal :icon_puke_l:
Quote from: Pat McCotter on January 31, 2007, 05:29 PM NHFT
Why the wait?
Pat Mccotter, Concord
For the Monitor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30. 2007 8:00AM
The state Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution to say that the state must define and fund an adequate education.
The sections being used in the interpretation have been in the constitution since it was adopted in 1784. If the intent of the framers of this document was to define and fund an adequate education, wouldn't they have done that from the beginning?
PAT McCOTTER
Concord
:clapping: :evil5: (pointing to the constitution)
Sent to the Monitor today as an LTE
-----
Last month, U.S. Marshals brought dozens of snipers, armored vehicles and Massachusetts police into the New Hampshire communities of Plainfield and Lebanon. Their small army seized a once-prosperous dental office, placed camoflaged gunmen in the Plainfield woods and "evacuated" innocent neighbors of tax protestors Ed and Elaine Brown. They blocked roads, sealed airspace, barred reporters and pressured corporations to stop doing business with the Browns.
Then they tasered and detained Danny Riley, an unarmed pedestrian and Brown supporter who discovered Federal gunmen hiding on the Brown property. Riley claims they also opened fire when he fled and that they've threatened him with forty years in jail for telling you his story.
All this because Washington covets the assets of a New Hampshire couple and treasures its partial control over your finances.
In months preceding, Federal operatives have taken other controversial measures which have harmed innocent persons:
They've shut down Elaine Brown's successful and unique dental practice.
They've at least briefly put all of her employees out of work and cut off patients (including me) from access to her service.
They've threatened New Hampshirites with prosecution if they deliver food to the Browns.
They've co-opted the docile state police force into their service...
And they've sent *you* the bill for these costly endeavors, all aimed at scaring you into filing the hated 1040 and paying a tax that funds torture.
But something else is happening: Angry phone calls, pouring into Federal offices by the thousands. Neighbors, and strangers, coming to the aid of the beleagured couple. Demonstrations. Activists, mobilizing and securing new bonds of mass communication, raising a voice of opposition which rings out even in the dispatches of the national press.
Would any of these things be happening if Washington were a force for good in our lives?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on July 03, 2007, 03:27 PM NHFT
Would any of these things be happening if Washington were a force for good in our lives?
Nice :)
sent this to union leader
Pro-Constitution demonstration in Concord
Dear Editor and readers:
On Tuesday, July 17 from 8:00 - 10:00 a.m. there will be a small demonstration in front of the Federal compound/eyesore in Concord. We'll be protesting Washington's routine violations of the Constitution, yet another of which is scheduled to occur immediately after the demo.
In apparent breach of Amendments One and Ten, Washington's local ministers will seek to inflict retribution on a local demonstrator....me. I'm charged, essentially, with peaceably petitioning the government for a redress of grievances and then refusing to pay their "distribution of handbills" fine. In fairness to our rattled overlords, I should note that I was leafleting in an IRS lobby, not on a street corner. But if you can't petition the government in its lobbies, how are you to personally reach its officers?
In any event, you're invited join our demonstration. For more details visit calendar.nhfree.com or ring me up at ______ . We look forward to seeing you.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on July 10, 2005, 09:25 AM NHFT
LTE from me to Keene Sentinel
While the Keene city government works toward a massive tax increase, there is one piece of good "money news" to report.
Management at Keene's Wal-Mart has decided to begin accepting Liberty Dollars as payment.? ?For those who are not yet aware, the Liberty Dollar is a private, silver-backed currency distributed nationally by NORFED and designed to enhance the economies of cities in which it circulates.? ? Basically, it is a one-ounce silver piece with a face value of $10.? ?Unlike the fiat currency in your wallet, it tends to go up in value against the greenback and gives you some of the same powers that our Federal Reserve used to "reserve" for itself.
It only took about 10 minutes for Wal-Mart folks to make this cool decision, and believe you me I rewarded them with a silver shopping spree!? ?I'll be back many times.? Special thanks to Correy (Wal-Mart manager) and also to Angela at the service desk.? Mention them if the cashier doesn't know whether to take the silver.
Other stores in town who have accepted Liberty Dollars from me include City Tire and Cheshire Village Pizza.? ?Thanks, all of you!
Liberty Dollars are good for Keene because they tend to circulate locally and because they have intrinsic value.? Those who are really serious about them can do what the Federal Reserve does with greenbacks:? buy them in bulk at a slight discount and spend them at a slight profit.? They increase your net buying power, and they soar in value when there is an economic or monetary crisis.? ?
So, if you already own Liberty Dollars, I urge you to reward the stores above by spending them there.? If you want to *start* using Liberty Dollars, just visit www.norfed.org or call them at 800.NEW.DOLLAR.? ?A random net search should give you independent background information you need to decide whether you can trust this currency as I do.? ?I certainly trust it more than the Federal dollar, which has lost 98% of its value since the Federal Reserve was founded!
So I got several of these the bank wouldn't take.
Would you like to buy them from me? There was supposed to be $30 worth for two tix but there seems only to be $25. I think one $5 fell out on the ground at the picnic. :-(
of course the bank won't take them.
I will take them next time I see you... or I am sure that others will. ;D
Lloyd's LTE in the Monitor today (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070718/REPOSITORY/707180324&SearchID=73287580994081) was... well, it's god-damned mandatory reading. He's a Verbal Ninja.
+1
:icon_cheers: :NinjaIconA:
The LTE to monitor appears not to have run. so i am slightly re-writing it and sending it to the KFP
----
On June 7, U.S. Marshals brought dozens of snipers, armored vehicles and Massachusetts police into the New Hampshire communities of Plainfield and Lebanon. Their small army seized a once-prosperous dental office, placed camouflaged gunmen in the Plainfield woods and "evacuated" innocent neighbors of tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown. They blocked roads, sealed airspace, barred reporters and pressured corporations to stop doing business with the Browns.
Then they tasered and detained Danny Riley, an unarmed pedestrian and Brown supporter who discovered Federal gunmen hiding on the Brown property. Riley claims they also opened fire when he fled and that they've threatened him with forty years in jail for telling you his story.
All this because Washington covets the assets of a New Hampshire couple and treasures its partial control over your finances.
In months preceding, Federal operatives have taken other controversial measures which have harmed innocent persons:
They've shut down Elaine Brown's successful and unique dental practice.
They've at least briefly put all of her employees out of work and cut off patients (including me) from access to her service.
They've threatened New Hampshirites with prosecution if they deliver food to the Browns.
They've co-opted the docile state police force into their service...
And they've sent *you* the bill for these costly endeavors, all aimed at scaring you into filing the hated 1040 and paying a tax that funds torture.
But something else is happening: Angry phone calls, pouring into Federal offices by the thousands. Neighbors, and strangers, coming to the aid of the beleaguered couple. Demonstrations. Activists, mobilizing and securing new bonds of mass communication, raising a voice of opposition which rings out even in the dispatches of the national press.
Would any of the above things be happening if Washington were a force for good in our lives?
Dave Ridley
Manchester
Fosters declined to print my reply to this (http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/FOSTERS05/107260302/-1/NEWS13) misinformation. So, posting here
---
To the editor:
As Director of Research for the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, I would like to correct some misperceptions on the part of Representative Cyr in his July 24 letter.
Rep. Cyr somehow believes that the Liberty Alliance rated Governor Lynch with a "D" in our Liberty Index. In fact, our organization does not rate the office of Governor; we examine only the House and Senate.
Cyr's own "D" was not the due to his party affiliation, but rather the result of his many votes to limit the freedoms of his constituents. He voted to make criminals out of people who simply don't wear their seat belts, to deny workers the option of whether they want to unionize, to deny school choice to parents, to be able to pass an income tax without consulting his constituents, and to distribute taxpayers' money to special interest groups.
Please do not misconstrue the above: Rep. Cyr is by no means the worst of legislators in our State House. We agree wholeheartedly with several of Cyr's votes -- such as his rejection of the Federal "Real-ID" system. That, in part, is how he earned a "D", and not an "F".
I would also note that Democrats have earned the full range of grades, from "A" through "F".
The index is located for anyone to review at http://nhliberty.org/2007_liberty_rating
Denis Goddard
Director of Research,
NH Liberty Alliance
Just curious -- what was Foster's excuse? They said it so it must be true? That is what I always get from the Nashua Teletrash and the Keene Urinal.
Also I don't agree with the unions thing, because once they are formed you can't work unless you join.
It's like saying you can't work for your employer unless you vote a certain way (that is how Hugo Chavez got 90% of the vote)
I always think of that when they say Lynch got 70% of the vote. Most of that was due to voter fraud....
NOTE TO DENIS: Foster's just called me and mine will be printed. It's even more scathing than yours, LOL.
Watch for it.
Sent this to the concord paper
----
Dear folks at the Monitor:
I read your July 30 article about the forced relocation of Morton and Carolyn Tuttle's home. After seizing the ground under it in a controversial land grab (and threatening to sue the Tuttles in the process) it appears Concord city officials have finally vanquished the elderly couple.
You quoted Gary Clifford at the Department of Transportation. He says no one was hurt in the process of moving the house. That may come as a surprise to the Tuttle family, who believe Mrs. Tuttle died in part because of this travesty.
I'd like to think no bureaucrat took pleasure inflicting this pain upon the Tuttle family...but how many spoke out against it? How many refused to play a part in this squalid endeavor?
(sig)
Quote from: CNHT on July 31, 2007, 12:16 AM NHFT
I don't agree with the unions thing, because once they are formed you can't work unless you join.
Actually, the bill we used in the Report Card would have required that union membership
not be required in order to be employed. That's the one Cyr was opposed to.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 31, 2007, 10:28 AM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on July 31, 2007, 12:16 AM NHFT
I don't agree with the unions thing, because once they are formed you can't work unless you join.
Actually, the bill we used in the Report Card would have required that union membership not be required in order to be employed. That's the one Cyr was opposed to.
Oh there were two? There were so many bills coming through I wasn't sure. I was not forced to belong but if not I had to pay the 'fee'. No difference. Then they took that money and gave it to politicians I hated..
Oh and here is some funny crap -- I sent that email after I saw Denis' post, in the wee hours, and when they called me this morning to verify that I sent them the letter, I said I'm so angry about people like Cyr and the reporter said, 'Well, you gotta VOTE'... Methinks he didn't know who he was talkin' to.
>:D
Quote from: d_goddard on July 30, 2007, 11:24 PM NHFT
Fosters declined to print my reply to this (http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/FOSTERS05/107260302/-1/NEWS13) misinformation. So, posting here
---
To the editor:
As Director of Research for the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, I would like to correct some misperceptions on the part of Representative Cyr in his July 24 letter.
Rep. Cyr somehow believes that the Liberty Alliance rated Governor Lynch with a "D" in our Liberty Index. In fact, our organization does not rate the office of Governor; we examine only the House and Senate.
Cyr's own "D" was not the due to his party affiliation, but rather the result of his many votes to limit the freedoms of his constituents. He voted to make criminals out of people who simply don't wear their seat belts, to deny workers the option of whether they want to unionize, to deny school choice to parents, to be able to pass an income tax without consulting his constituents, and to distribute taxpayers' money to special interest groups.
Please do not misconstrue the above: Rep. Cyr is by no means the worst of legislators in our State House. We agree wholeheartedly with several of Cyr's votes -- such as his rejection of the Federal "Real-ID" system. That, in part, is how he earned a "D", and not an "F".
I would also note that Democrats have earned the full range of grades, from "A" through "F".
The index is located for anyone to review at http://nhliberty.org/2007_liberty_rating
Denis Goddard
Director of Research,
NH Liberty Alliance
Hey Denis, I guess when Foster's got letters from others that said the same thing, they had a change of heart.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070802/FOSTERS05/108020322/-1/NEWS13
Congrats!
8)
+1
Quote from: CNHT on July 31, 2007, 12:16 AM NHFT
Also I don't agree with the unions thing, because once they are formed you can't work unless you join.
This isn't a result of the existence of unions, it's either a result of the government passing laws to protect them, or a result of their agreements with the employer. I don't particularly like unions, but the only thing I would actually oppose is the government protecting them—workers certainly have a right to form them, and an employer is certainly within his rights to contract with a union to only hire union members.
All I know is, when I refused to join, they simply charged me a 'user fee'.
That user fee still went to support politicians I did not like...
It's shameful.
Quote from: CNHT on August 03, 2007, 02:07 PM NHFT
All I know is, when I refused to join, they simply charged me a 'user fee'.
That user fee still went to support politicians I did not like...
It's shameful.
Yeah,
this bullshit needs to stop. There's either a law or some federal labor regulation covering the requirement to pay union dues, and every time we get a Republican administration they either overturn it or add an option where you can opt out of the portion that goes to political
bribes contributions (since those always go to the Democratic Party), and every time we get a Democrat they put it back.
I remember they interviewed a person in the union about who she was voting for. They asked her why she was voting for Clinton and she said, "Uh, because my union told me to?"
:puke:
FWIW, it's the HRA-Republicans (http://nhhouserepublicanalliance.org) that typically push this issue. It's generally opposed systematically by the Democrats.
HB254 (http://www.generalcourt.org/bills/2007/HB819) was killed, try again in 2 years and pray there is a Restoration.
Quote from: d_goddard on August 03, 2007, 08:56 PM NHFT
FWIW, it's the HRA-Republicans (http://nhhouserepublicanalliance.org) that typically push this issue. It's generally opposed systematically by the Democrats.
HB254 (http://www.generalcourt.org/bills/2007/HB819) was killed, try again in 2 years and pray there is a Restoration.
By the way, see how getting a flood of letters on the same subject will prompt them to print at least one that expresses the sentiments?
I mirrored nearly exactly what you had said....and I'm sure there were a few others too. The paper called to say they'd print mine but I feel they chose yours instead since you signed it with some authority (the research director) so that made it even more plausible.
So now at least the public doesn't have to listen to Cyr's craziness without hearing 'the rest of the story'.
(And let's hope Cyr read it too)
Quote from: CNHT on August 03, 2007, 09:10 PM NHFT
The paper called to say they'd print mine but I feel they chose yours instead since you signed it with some authority (the research director) so that made it even more plausible.
I don't think they printed mine -- the webpage it appears on says all the LTEs on that page are web-only :|
Quote from: d_goddard on August 03, 2007, 10:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on August 03, 2007, 09:10 PM NHFT
The paper called to say they'd print mine but I feel they chose yours instead since you signed it with some authority (the research director) so that made it even more plausible.
I don't think they printed mine -- the webpage it appears on says all the LTEs on that page are web-only :|
I thought that is what you had submitted it for....so you think mine might have appeared in the paper edition? Uh oh -- this means I'll probably have 10 stalkers now....LOL
I just got rid of one from a letter I wrote last year. I sent him a copy of the NH Constitution -- my last one -- and that shut him up good.
sending 2 monitor:
----
In your article "Browns shake up entourage," you mentioned me and said I am at odds with tax protester Ed Brown because I hold pacifist views. This is not accurate; like most Americans I support and practice self defense. What I oppose is revenge violence directed against our government *and* government violence directed against our neighbors - the Browns.
In your article you also detail other conflicts Brown has had with his supporters. To say that Ed often pushes allies away...that *is* accurate. So maybe we should ask ourselves...if a man so difficult, so objectionable...is able to:
- draw hundreds of supporters to his house over a six month period (300+ in one day)
- mobilize activists nationwide, by the tens of thousands
- flood the non-emergency phone lines of nearly every bureaucracy connected to the case and
- remain free on his own property in defiance of a nuclear Empire
...what would a *likeable* version of Ed Brown be able to accomplish? What will Washington do when they are faced with an Ed Brown who treats supporters well...and gets ten times as many of them? What will it do when there are five Ed Browns?
And what puts such a fury into a People, that they are willing to rally around so flawed a man, simply because he draws a line in the sand against Washington? What evils must a government commit, that it breathe such defiance among its citizens, that they cleave to any symbol of resistance, no matter how imperfect?
Dave Ridley
NHfree.com
Quote from: DadaOrwell on August 24, 2007, 08:46 PM NHFT
...what would a *likeable* version of Ed Brown be able to accomplish?
Powerful stuff, man.
Quote from: d_goddard on August 24, 2007, 11:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on August 24, 2007, 08:46 PM NHFT
...what would a *likeable* version of Ed Brown be able to accomplish?
Powerful stuff, man.
Let's find out, shall we? (https://www.nhteaparty.org/)
Outstanding letter, Dave!
mooie bwano moochacho
Posted to Union Leader comment section
----
Both sides of this argument seem to be right. Washington should be cutting social programs. And it should be cutting the Department of Offense. Ideally it should cut them all to zero and disband, like the British did in India. Someday its overspending will force it to do just that.
Every dime DC spends is stolen from us and our offspring. Every program they fund is parasitical...this American political class who rules over 300 million people with an iron hand.