From The Broadcaster - Free-Staters state case

[PattyE]

I thought this was an oddly written editorial.? Do you?? ????

Free-Staters state case

Article Published: Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 3:17:24 PM EST

Free-Staters state case

New Hampshire continues to demonstrate its well-earned reputation. You know -- rugged individuals who don't stand in line and won't be "told" what to do.? No wonder the Free State movement wants to live here so badly.? The latest outbursts of "independence" include politics and policing, both areas the Free-Staters consider of interest.
Just lately, there's the "Hillary for President" faction. Convinced that Sen. Hillary Clinton is their best hope for the next election, state Democrats are running a campaign generated by a gent from Florida -- described as a political "gadfly." He'd like Hillary to espouse legal marijuana in her campaign, for instance. But Hillary says she's focused on re-election to her New York Senate seat.

And take a look at the folks dedicated to ignoring state or federal laws they deem overbearing or ineffective.

That translates to police campaigns in Hudson and New Ipswich aimed at picking up illegal immigrants who are then charged with trespassing. Why? Because locals figure the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service isn't doing its job.

Or, consider Amherst's move to redefine the laws on sexual predator notification. That's because Amherst residents and officials deem state law insufficient for the public's protection, in addition to being vague. The current law unfairly paints all "sex offenders" with the same brush, for one thing.

So, as is their way, the "live-free-or-die" folks have again taken things into their own hands.

There's a risk in all this, of course. They could be sued for messing with someone's rights, and that could cost each town its financial underpinnings.

And the Hillary thing?

What the heck. She's gotta start somewhere.

[Kat Kanning]

Yes, very strange.

[tracysaboe]

it's a mismash of a bunch of different stuff with the word "Free Staters" thrown in.

Completely pointless. As in "What's the point, because she doesn't make one."

Either that, or she's a genious and it's over my head 

TRacy

[SethCohn]

LTE submitted:

Regarding your article on "Free-Staters state case"

As a participant in the Free State Project, I'm really curious who or what you are getting your information from about us, because on the issues you discuss, I'd be hard pressed to find any supporters, let alone general support.

The percentage of Hillary Clinton fans among Free Staters is likely near zero.  Ms. Clinton believes in bigger government 100%, no matter what the issue, so she has no friends among us.

As for illegal immigrants being charged for trespassing, the last thing most Free Staters want to see is more 'papers please' enforcement or legislation.

As for Amherst's redefining sexual offender notification, they are talking about making more laws, including ex post facto ones that repunish those who were already punished once.  I'm not aware of any Free Staters who support that, or any 'Big Brother' style tracking laws.

To my eyes, it looks like 'Free Staters' were badly mischaracterized by you in this article.  If you'd like to know more about what we really stand for, think more classical 'Granite' minded.  We picked New Hampshire because we fit the mold already... and many locals are welcoming us with open arms once they discover that.  Your article in no way conveyed that.

[PattyE]

An excellent response, Seth!  Thanks for taking the time to do that!