LTE's from Undergrounders

[tracysaboe]

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

[KBCraig]

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

[Dave Ridley]

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!?

[Dave Ridley]

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)

[Dave Ridley]

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:

[Kat Kanning]

Good one!

[president]

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.

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.

Do tell. How do you know he went to a mid-Atlantic group meeting? Was he a FSP participant?

[Dave Ridley]

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.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Great Dave, thanks.
Lloyd

[Dave Ridley]

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.

[GT]

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.

[Rodinia]

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

[Dave Ridley]

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!

[Dave Ridley]

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.   

[Dave Ridley]

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.