(white) goldstandard-02-22-24-H.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-02-22-24-H-y.pdf

The post House Gold Standard – February 22, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

(white) goldstandard-02-21-24-S.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-02-21-24-S-y.pdf

The post Senate Gold Standard – February 21, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

• These are the most liberty-critical hearings for the week
• Click on the bill number to read the bill.
• Click on the committee name to email the committee your thoughts.

Of the 52 hearings in the House, we are recommending support of 10 and opposition of 3 with 6 being of interest.
Of the 15 hearings in the Senate, we are recommending support of 0 and opposition of 1 with 1 being of interest.

The post Bill Hearings for Week of February 19, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

The long-held monopoly on the practice of law by licensed attorneys has indeed served to protect individuals requiring legal services from malpractice, but it has also served to protect the State from true challenges to its authority and practices.  Sometimes the system and its players are what should be lawfully challenged in court… but those beholden through tens of thousands of dollars in education investments to the good graces of judges may find themselves in a position where they cannot properly defend their clients.  This is why in New Hampshire I believe RSA 311:7, the prohibitor on allowing lay individuals to represent individuals, should be eliminated and the NH Bar Association’s monopoly on the practice of law dismantled.

As many of you may already know, I am not a lawyer.  I am a former law enforcement officer who has spent many hours studying law and listening to judicial oral arguments in efforts to better understand the American legal system and its function.  In 2011/2012 I was authorized to represent a journalist named Jason Talley in front of the Cheshire County Superior Court for charges stemming from his mere possession (not use) of a camera in a common area of a court.  Jason and I “won” the case together by attacking the system and individual judges for misconduct.  A licensed lawyer who regularly practices law in front of these judges most likely would be apprehensive to do the same out of fear of retribution from the very people who can control their law licenses or liberty interests of future clients.

As it stands now, a person of “good moral character” can practice law in New Hampshire so long as they don’t do it “commonly.”  What does “commonly” mean?  It seems to mean whatever the judge of the day thinks it means.

I believe this prohibition needs to be struck down…  and I believe this prohibition is in direct conflict with the New Hampshire Constitution, specifically Part I, Article 10.  That’s right…  it is my position that the NH Bar Association and NH Attorney General cannot monopolize and prohibit individuals from practicing law if they are intent on “reforming” the government through the codified Right of Revolution.

It is undeniable: The State of New Hampshire was founded by rebels.  Rabble rousers who were rousing rabbles.  They clearly had concern that future government might twist into the type of institution that they had fled from: a government that offers special protection to some, but not all, citizens.

In State v. Jason Talley, Jason and I roused a few rabbles of our own by arguing that certain judges within the New Hampshire Judicial Branch were a class of men that were being afforded special levels of protection from accountability.  If unsubstantiated these arguments could have landed Jason and I in jail through contempt proceedings. We weren’t tossed into a jail cell though… because these arguments and allegations were factual.

I made these arguments on Jason’s behalf and ultimately secured the case being dismissed.  As I mentioned above, a licensed attorney may have been reluctant to make such an argument out of fear of reprisal…  and Jason may have been unjustly been found guilty and had his liberty stripped from him.

The Right of Revolution, Part I, Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution, authorizes the reformation of government if certain conditions are met.  How better to peacefully reform the government than to practice law and challenge the system when it is acting contrary to the public interest?  If that constitutional amendment doesn’t allow the respectful and proper formulation of legal arguments for a consenting litigant then what possibly could it ever stand for?  Is it just words on paper that government authorities would rather just ignore than honor?

Well, I intend to find out.

To New Hampshire Attorney General John M. Formella: I do apologize to you as an individual human being (you’re probably a really decent guy) as for the headache I am going to bring you.  This was before your time and was absolutely not your fault.  But…  you’re the man in charge now.

Just look around on X or Facebook on any given day…  New Hampshire is going through a revolution.  I say we keep the revolution peaceful, lawful, and on paper in intellectual arguments filed in the court system…  and at the ballot box.

I encourage everyone to watch the following video to refresh your recollection of what happened nearly thirteen years ago.  A man named Ademo Freeman has his rights violated and as a result of that Jason Talley had his rights violated.  This was unacceptable then and remains unacceptable now.  The State of New Hampshire Judicial Branch has to swallow the reality they have created for themselves: they are above the law.

Violence isn’t the answer to injustice in the world.

Reasoned, respectful, and civil debate in the court system is.

Stay tuned for updates as the case is filed and progresses!

Please be kind to each other in the comment section.  You don’t have to be kind to me though, you can let me have it with both barrels if you feel so inclined.  The ironic part is, though you may attack me, I’m standing up for you and your right to challenge the system if accused of something unjust.

Recently here in the federal prison that I currently call “home,” there was a fight between two miserable, awful human beings known around the unit as the Nazi and the Swindler. Even more recently, Granite State Watch released a list of anti-democracy extremists; I am on that list, and it brought much joy to this, the eighth month of my eighteen month prison sentence, to know that I struck such a profound fear in them that even the rattling of my chains echoes in their minds. Of course, Granite State Watch is correct in their assessment; I am an anti-democracy extremist. When all the cards are laid on the table, it’s shown that they, too, are anti-democracy extremists. Most people are.

I don’t simply mean the Socialist and Communist leftists clamoring for a dictatorship of the proletariat, although, as they’re commonly used, “dictatorship’ and “democracy” would be mutually exclusive. I also don’t mean the anti-democracy representatives who voted against CACR32, thereby prohibiting New Hampshire voters from voting on a ballot question, although those state reps who voted against it, in literal terms, voted against democracy. Instead, I mean only to point out that anyone of reason who has been educated past the third grade is likely to be staunchly anti-democracy, because democracy is stupid.

No person of sense would poll the ignorant masses for a medical diagnosis, or help with any problem of significance. The average person is simply not educated or equipped to answer most specialized questions, but, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and sheer incompetent arrogance, they not only will give a terrible and incorrect answer, but will then vigorously defend that wrong answer when assailed by facts and logic. We saw this during the Covid-19 pandemic, when suddenly everyone was an expert virologist, biologist, and epidemiologist overnight, all without any education or training whatsoever. And nearly everyone among this hitherto unknown mass of doctors with their wildly differing “expert” opinions was willing to fight and defend whatever their dumbass opinion happened to be. The side calling me an anti-democracy extremist was, in fact, the side that coined the term “Covidiot” to describe such people.

It shouldn’t need to be pointed out, but the ones the left calls “Covidiots” vote, and one vote cast by an idiot cancels out entirely a vote cast by an intelligent person. Imagine some respectable citizen taking several hours from their busy life to contemplate and research the issues, reach an informed decision, learn about the candidates, and then proudly cast their vote in an election, only for it to be nullified by a slack-jawed yokel whose entire political ideology is “I ain’t wearin’ no face diaper!” So, yes, I must confess a substantial degree of disdain and contempt for any political system that, as a matter of foundational policy, weighs these two people and their opinions, and finds them to be equally worthy of consideration and application.

Further, it does not matter where one falls on the political compass; the most common perspective is that the opinion holder is correct and, as deviation from that opinion increases, so does the stupidity required to disagree with the first person’s obviously correct position. Someone who disagrees only slightly is “only a little stupid,” while someone who diametrically opposed is a mouth-breathing troglodyte unworthy of being considered human.

What does any of this have to do with the Nazi and the Swindler? It dawned on me, the day that I learned about Granite State Watch and their list, that the Nazi and the Swindler are the perfect symbol of presidential elections, especially in recent years. Here are the two absolutely worst human beings we can find. One is a large, old, overweight, vile, racist, homophobic bully who more or less prides himself on those characteristics, and he is fighting a smaller, older dementia patient who may or may not understand where he is and who may or may not be pooping his pants. As South Park said, it’s always a big, giant douche and a turd sandwich. It’s always a Nazi versus a Swindler.

All this said, the United States isn’t a democracy. It is a constitutional republic that uses the democratic means (e.g., voting) to ostensibly achieve its ends. Without the ability to Google things, I believe it was Winston Churchill who said something like, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for the others that have been tried.” Just as the constitutional republic was meant to be a “government that governs least,” because it was recognized that all government is evil and horrible (Yes, even the American government), democracy was never thought to be good, but was instead only the least terrible option available at the time. We shouldn’t be so enamored with our own supposed greatness that we lose perspective on how awful the system is.

Even with the much-touted “checks and balances” of the system, there has been created an invincible and virtually omnipotent administrative state, a government by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, and the supposedly powerful people, such as Senators and Presidents, are at best powerless figureheads who cannot effect change any more than a brave fool could use a paper fan to drive away a hurricane. Yet even the uselessness of the offices does not open them to the public at large; candidates are carefully screened and selected, only after after a lifetime of service and fervent loyalty to the system and the duopoly controlling it. Knowledge of this apparatus is so widespread that the most common response, when I secured the Republican nomination for sheriff of Cheshire County in New Hampshire in 2020, was, “How did this happen? Why didn’t the power structures that control candidate selection keep Aria out?”

When the average person praises democracy, they are expressing love and admiration for this nightmarish administrative leviathan that allows them to cast their vote, as equals to idiots, in a contest between a Nazi and a Swindler, when the outcome has no measurable impact anyway. To suggest that we only need “more informed” voters, better candidates, more transparency, or whatever other platitude one wants to toss out, is to suggest that we need only a better fan to divert the hurricane.

(white) goldstandard-02-15-24-H.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-02-15-24-H-y.pdf

The post House Gold Standard – February 15, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

(white) goldstandard-02-15-24-S.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-02-15-24-S-y.pdf

The post Senate Gold Standard – February 15, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

As politicians and law enforcement leaders spin their wheels trying to get ahold of the fentanyl crisis, those of us in the drug policy reform movement have long had the answer to solving the overdose issue: legalize, regulate, and educate.  Treat drug abuse as it should be: a medical condition, not a criminal justice one.

To say that the Drug War has been an abject failure is to simply be a broken record repeating the message that we’ve been saying all along.  President Joe Biden’s administration funded $42.5 billion dollars for drug control for fiscal year 2023.  This was a complete waste of your money, just like all the years before it.  Were the enforcement of drug laws making a difference the following overdose statistics would simply not exist.

The police keep doing the same thing they’ve always done…  and the deaths just keep on rising.

As the title of this blog suggests, and I challenge you to refute it, our current drug policy supported by law enforcement and political leaders would rather have people die than be dependent on a narcotic.  The long solution to saving money, reducing crime, saving lives, and reducing addiction, has been to open public opiate clinics where addicts can get the drugs they need to function in society.  Yes, we should spend taxpayer dollars on giving maintenance doses of drugs to people with opiate use disorder rather than spending money on prosecuting and incarcerating them.  Addicts would no longer have to attack innocent people through robberies, burglaries, and theft to get money to acquire the drugs they need to function.  Innocent people would be protected from crime.  Sick people would be helped with the ultimate goal being drug free.

Doctors would want to administer less drugs, black market drug dealers want to administer more.

We could put the cartels out of business overnight.  We could stop funding wonderful organizations like the Taliban who profit off illicit opium sales.

This, of course, means that we would have to shift away from what the police and politicians currently want.  That is that people should be dead rather than dependent on a drug.  It is a cruel policy that costs lives when in contrast we could be saving lives and reducing addiction by simply having doctors and nurses provide the narcotics people need to sustain themselves.  Opiate use disorder is a legitimate medical condition that should be treated by medical professionals, not by law enforcement officers with handcuffs and cold jail cells.

Legalizing drugs has never been about the fact that all drugs are a good thing that people should use.  To the contrary, I think all people should steer clear of opiates the best they can.  Legalizing drugs has been about the fact that drugs are too dangerous to be controlled by the low-life criminal element of society and that having professional medical staff administering drugs would reduce death and disease.

President Biden: you can heal our world and correct the policy mistakes you have supported in the past.

Dismiss Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Dr. Rahul Gupta and replace him with Drug Policy Alliance Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann.  Repeal the federal “crack house” statue, 21 USC 856, that prevents overdose prevention centers from opening.

Harm reduction is the future.

-/-

Please note that I have begun moderating the comments.  I don’t mind comments that demean, disrespect, or hate on my opinions that I share here… but the comments in the comment section were people attacking each other. 

FreeKeene.com is a community of voluntaryists/libertarians that talk about their ideas and liberty activism.  Please try to keep it respectful to each other.

• These are the most liberty-critical hearings for the week
• Click on the bill number to read the bill.
• Click on the committee name to email the committee your thoughts.

Of the 76 hearings in the House, we are recommending support of 8 and opposition of 9 with 17 being of interest.
Of the 20 hearings in the Senate, we are recommending support of 1 and opposition of 1 with 2 being of interest.

The post Bill Hearings for Week of February 12, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

New Hampshire’s legislature has again voted on a measure which would let the NH electorate vote in a referendum on independence from the U.S. In 2022, very similar legislation received:
– 13 votes by state reps.
This time, the bill received:
– 24 votes by state reps.

Initially it appears few mainstream media have reported the latter number or the increase. But you can see the vote here for confirmation; this is the legislature’s official channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQHnyO93Vng
The vote occurs at 5:08:00

Here is the report on the less-successful 2022 effort: https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-house-secede-united-states/39400488?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot#
Around that time, a scientific poll by SurveyUSA indicated 42% support for an independence referendum, among NH residents…another under-reported number:
https://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f4ec3bab-2167-4e8e-ab64-671c1b4a5ddd

(white) goldstandard-02-08-24-S.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-02-08-24-S-y.pdf

The post Senate Gold Standard – February 08, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

(white) goldstandard-02-08-24-H.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-02-08-24-H-y.pdf

The post House Gold Standard – February 08, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

(white) goldstandard-02-08-24-S.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-02-08-24-S-y.pdf

The post Senate Gold Standard – February 08, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

• These are the most liberty-critical hearings for the week
• Click on the bill number to read the bill.
• Click on the committee name to email the committee your thoughts.

Of the 106 hearings in the House, we are recommending support of 18 and opposition of 12 with 8 being of interest.
Of the 18 hearings in the Senate, we are recommending support of 0 and opposition of 1 with 2 being of interest.

The post Bill Hearings for Week of February 05, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

New Hampshire State House

A constitutional amendment proposed this session (CACR 20) would give the people of New Hampshire the power to fight back against the dangerous and reckless spending of the federal government. In the last 100 years the U.S.federal government has only managed to balance its budget once! By comparison New Hampshire not only cut taxes, but even reduced it’s budget during a time in which all the other states were spending recklessly (that is during the recent economic shutdown that was COVID). As an independent country New Hampshire could do better and CAC20 would give the people the right to vote on an amendment that would declare independence if the federal government continues to increase our indebtedness.

No matter how people actually vote on this constitutional amendment our legislators sending it to a vote of the people would be an act that sends an important message to the federal government: Stop stealing our money or we’re out. This bill would enable voters to declare New Hampshire an independent country IF and only if the United States continues to entangle New Hampshire in a debt we will never be able to pay back. The declaration of independence from the United States empire would only occur if both the citizens of New Hampshire voted yes to pass the constitutional amendment AND the federal governments debt hits $40 trillion. It is also essential that the house and senate conduct a roll call so we know which reps favor democracy and freedom and which reps just pay lip service to it.

The committee hearing on this amendment saw more than 50 individuals come out in support of it and only one person testify against it. I’m not even sure that is correctly framed as my recollection is they had a neutral stance on the amendment. As the committee didn’t listen to it’s constituents and placed the amendment on the consent calendar it’s now up to you to tell your reps to pull this bill off of the consent calendar and do a role call vote. This will give us the power to vote out reps who do not support democracy and the freedom of their constituents to vote on this important issue.

In conclusion please tell your rep to pull CACR 20 off of the consent calendar and support it in a roll call vote!

To find out who your state reps are and their contact information you can utilize this handy tool:

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/

(white) goldstandard-02-01-24-H.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-02-01-24-H-y.pdf

The post House Gold Standard – February 01, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

• These are the most liberty-critical hearings for the week
• Click on the bill number to read the bill.
• Click on the committee name to email the committee your thoughts.

Of the 118 hearings in the House, we are recommending support of 24 and opposition of 17 with 5 being of interest.
Of the 55 hearings in the Senate, we are recommending support of 3 and opposition of 8 with 4 being of interest.

The post Bill Hearings for Week of January 29, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

Austin’s border militarization is wrong; so is U.S. interference. NH should divorce both governments.

(Above) New Hampshire independence advocates rally before a hearing on secession legislation (Photo by Joa Orga).

In a memorable sci-fi moment, elderly politician Chrisjen Avasarala warns interstellar envoy James Holden of danger. She expects a murderous local faction will try and get him on their side. “Do not,” she says, “put your dick in it.”

Those of us in America who advocate a “national divorce” should consider her advice – and historical precedent – before we “jump to the side…of Austin’s aPARtheid.” Every state and empire involved with this ugly confrontation will lie, steal, cheat and at least occasionally kill. That’s what states and empires do, even when they’re not trying to build the next Berlin Wall or accrue millions of destitute migrants at taxpayer expense. So how should Concord react? How should secession advocates react? It, and we, should let the non-aggression principle be the guide.

Within the limits of practicality, we should:

– Support the human rights, of every member, of every party, to this conflict.
– Oppose every act of aggression committed by every member of every party to this conflict.

Ignore the faction; focus on the action.

So what aggressive misdeeds have been committed? Well, walking to Texas from Mexico without papers…is not an act of aggression. Making taxpayers help or harm migrants *is* an act aggression. Both D.C. and Austin have committed both acts.

1) Washington made this showdown possible by using income taxation to seize the earnings of Texans. It then redistributed some of the stolen property to so-called “illegals,” artificially increasing the number of migrants and creating more resentment toward them. It has actively fostered immigration problems. Where in the U.S. Constitution is such a redistribution of wealth to immigrants authorized? Even if authorized, would it be right?
2) Where, in its constitution, is D.C. empowered to prevent Texans – even Texas goons – from restricting immigration themselves? To restrict Texas citizens from owning or acquiring certain firearms they may deem useful for self defense in a time of crisis? How many hundreds of pages of gun laws does D.C. impose on Texas?
3) Where is D.C. empowered to make New Hampshire taxpayers underwrite its actions against Austin? To tax New Hampshirites and give their money to random immigrants?
4) Has everyone forgotten the extent to which D.C. has destabilized Latin American countries over the years, including the 2009 coup in Honduras?
5) Should D.C. be allowed to get away with its pause on Texas natgas permits? Do these constitute economic sanctions which would raise prices in New Hampshire?
6) If D.C. doesn’t follow its constitution, why does Austin have to follow it? Why does New Hampshire?

Having raised these concerns:

A) The Texas government’s attempt to militarize part of its border with Mexico is an act of aggression against the many Texas taxpayers who disagree with such measures. It is also an abuse of migrants who wish to exercise the inalienable (if not yet recognized) human right to travel on public roads without government permission.
B) Austin imposes some gun control of its own on Texas. This limits the ability of Texans – and migrants – to exercise legit self defense against violent criminals. Like Kiev, Austin has experienced a rush of brains to the head on this matter and gun laws there have generally been loosening.
C) Austin, at least on occasion or by accident…does direct some welfare payments to undocumented migrants.
D) State sovereignty is desirable as a hedge against Washington, its over-taxation, its no-win wars. But Texas’ rulers have picked a dirty issue upon which to make their stand for such sovereignty. This issue likely won’t stand the test of time. If the trends of the last 500 years continue, by 2100 it will be widely understood that no human being – or sentient being – is “illegal.” It will become obvious that no peaceable person or person-equivalent should be told which region of the earth they may visit…that none should be forced to get permission from an earthly nation-state before they can travel. Those alive today who hold the popular view favoring guarded borders and travel papers….will likely be regarded like slavers or Jim Crow enforcers. In 1860 it was a commonly-held belief in the United States…that one human being should be able to enslave another based on ethnicity. Now it is a commonly-held belief that one human being should be able to severely restrict the movements of another based on nationality and “papers.” The two beliefs are not wildly different. Someday those who hold the second belief will probably be almost as disgraced as the slavers of 1860.
E) Since 1865, Austin has tamely acquiesced in nearly every Unionist genocide and torture chamber spree, from Wounded Knee to Bagram Air base. But it’s going to make a stand over..not being able to build its own border police state at taxpayer expense? Is there some reason Austin can’t just get out of the way, letting private citizens defend property or aid immigrants as they see fit in accordance with common rules of decency?
F) Arguably, constitutionally…Austin was correct in the 1860s when it claimed Washington had little authority to keep Texas in the union. Other states supported Austin’s position. But the stain of slavery blotted out all.
G) Arguably, constitutionally, Austin was correct in the 1960s when it claimed that D.C. had little authority to enforce the Civil Rights Act. Other states supported Austin’s position. But the stain of segregation blotted out all.
H) And arguably, constitutionally, Austin is correct in the 2020s when it claims D.C. has little authority to prevent local immigration control. Other states are supporting Austin’s position.. But the stain of border militarism may, in its turn, blot out all.

The most regrettable misdeed hasn’t been committed yet. That would be the use of deadly force by Austin against D.C.’s enforcers…even in “self defense.” Any such act of political violence by Texans during this standoff…would be an inexcusable breach of everything Dr. King – and to some extent Texit leader Daniel Miller – have taught the world in the last century: An autonomy-minded region’s chances of political success against established central government…drops by 3x if the autonomists start using deadly force. Washington understands this, and there is probably some risk of a false flag event where D.C. attacks itself and makes it look like the Texans did it.  Maybe now is a chance for Texit folks to play some constructive or mediative role reducing tensions between Austin and Washington…so that their peaceable secession drive can continue in an orderly way.

During the 19th century, New Hampshire had a nonviolent independence movement which opposed both the expansionist wars of the Union…and slaver cruelty of the South. This movement was mostly forgotten, because the secession “success” of Southern slavers damaged all subsequent efforts at full independence for the states. But what if New Hampshire had declared independence in 1850 to protest slavery? Or the invasion of Mexico? Or all the Federal abuses at once? What if it at least had put secession to a vote? Setting that example might have kept independence alive through the decades as an active possibility for the states, disconnected from the taint of Fort Sumter and Confederacy.

NH has the ability to set such an example, and we have done it. In 2022, NHexit put legislation in front of the whole State House which would have let all New Hampshirites vote in a referendum on independence. In 2024, we brought almost exactly the same legislation forward and it made it into a Newsweek cover story. We do these things to show how plays for autonomy can be orderly, clean and even friendly. We do them to mainstream secession as Quebec and Scotland have done. But mainstream or not, New Hampshire independence is the root-striking answer to all grievances outlined above. We don’t belong in the same empire with D.C. and its on-again-off-again manipulation of migrants as political cannon fodder. We don’t belong in the same empire with Texas and its razor wire.

When India left the British Empire, no one imagined the two would part peaceably and that over 70 years of happy relations would follow. But that is what occurred. So it can be with New Hampshire and the increasingly troubled states of this continent. Change is coming fast. Once we are disentangled from our unhappy marriage with Austin and D.C., we can finally have a shot at normal friendly relations with both.

• These are the most liberty-critical hearings for the week
• Click on the bill number to read the bill.
• Click on the committee name to email the committee your thoughts.

Of the 97 hearings in the House, we are recommending support of 18 and opposition of 9 with 4 being of interest.
Of the 44 hearings in the Senate, we are recommending support of 1 and opposition of 8 with 5 being of interest.

The post Bill Hearings for Week of January 22, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

(white) goldstandard-01-18-24-S.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-01-18-24-S-y.pdf

The post Senate Gold Standard – January 18, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.