What? Where? The Pine Tree Riot? One of the first acts of rebellion by the American colonists? Yeah, you know Weare. The third annual Pine Tree Riot Celebration, Weare, NH, 4/26/2018...

Two Hundred and Forty Six years ago, a group of loggers from the small town of Weare, New Hampshire took the initial organized action against British tryanny in the eventual war for America's independence. This small act of resistance created a chain reaction across New England and the other colonies powered by the principles of freedom and liberty.

The Pine Tree Riot, as it came to be known, cemented New Hampshire as a place where the seeds of free and open societies grow strong. New Hampshire has served as a model of freedom to the rest of the nation ever since, and continues to lead the way. The Granite State consistently ranks among the most free states in America, and the recent years of tax reductions for employers has helped set the stage for the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Act at the federal level.

AFP-NH invites you to join us to celebrate this important event in American history and to reflect upon the sacrifice those before us made in the fight for liberty. We will be discussing the recent efforts at the state and federal level to expand economic freedom as a reminder of the fight that continues to this day.

History & Press

• NH Primary Source: AFP plans annual anti-tax ‘Pine Tree Riot’ event
• 2017 Pine Tree Riot Celebration
• 2016 Pine Tree Riot Celebration
• Weare Historical Society
• Weare, NH 1772: Rebellion Before the Revolution -- The Pine Tree Riot | Cow Hampshire
• The New Hampshire Pine Tree Riot of 1772 - New England Historical Society
• Pine Tree Riot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Pine Tree Riot | RealClearPolitics
• Pine Tree Riot: A History of Rebellion | Free State Project
• Pine Tree Riot Remembered - Shire Liberty News

Let's raise a very appropriate tankard this day to the very able Ebenezer!

Well, that was oppressive (but I do it for you, gentle reader). So here we are again with NH's very deliberately hand-picked "Prohibition Justification Commission", AKA, the Commission to Study the Legalization, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana, which has deigned this day, 4/16/2018, to hear from actual -- if not actually all that representative, if polls are any indication at all (and, too, it needs noting, mostly rent-seekers) -- citizens.

The "public comment" portion begins at about 22 minutes, following a college paper. Excepting your humble chronicler's own svelt testimony, weighing in at about a minute and a quarter, the remaining 10 average a torpor-inducing ~15.5 minutes apiece (granted, they get commodious "help" from the commission). Today's relentless catch-phrase: the ever-popular 'for the children'. Adults must simply accept being treated like children by their betters.

Here is the issue, mentioned by Commission member, Attorney Twomey a dozen ticks shy of the 19-min mark, regarding Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and his proper political intercession, on behalf of his actual constituents no less, against the DoJ's sabre-rattling regarding re-igniting the dying embers of that very "War On People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™. After that, maybe a freedom-oriented person might want to just skip to Rick Naya, the final speaker, at about 2:29:00.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in these crusaders, at least several of whom actually helpfully instruct the commission that the horrifically expensive (in blood, treasure and liberty) drug war does not work -- and yet they're here advocating that NH should continue that unwinnable drug war. Does that seem right to you -- especially if you're among, according to many polls now, the two-thirds of voters who want it ended, maybe even believe it was never authorized in the first place?

One more time. In a free, civil society, the rule of law must be respected. Therefore, in a free, civil society, servant government ought to obey its instituting Constitution. In a free, civil society, unauthorized fiat prohibitions must end. This aggression will not stand, man.

If you want prohibition -- of cannabis, or alcohol, or cigarettes, or harmful calories (watch the video, understand the "health choices" hypocrisy) -- you are first required to get the People to pass an authorizing amendment. A mere legislative statute is flatly insufficient in this Constitutional Republic. Once upon a time, even servant government understood that -- and the People eventually rectified their own grievous and costly mistake.

But no amendment is needed in order to repeal an undelegated authority. All that requires is an honest, servant government.

Uh-oh...

Nation-state power is declining.

Trust in national institutions is faltering across the globe.

The specter of collectivism, nationalism and racial identity is on the rise.

What if there was another option? What if, instead of a return to early-20th-century-style strong-man protectionist regimes, we could create something better? Something less likely to lead to war and recession?

What if we could create a global market anarchist order, a swarm of self-governing jurisdictions that effected security, lawmaking and conflict resolution via freed markets outside the nation-state?

What if we could do it right under the nose of the nation-state, incrementally decentralizing its power, in the form of a private organization?

Why does such an organization not yet exist today?

There are political parties for every statist ideology, from the environmentalists to the Nazis. There are advocacy organizations for human rights, for the rainforest, and for the poor.

But there is no organization whose purpose is to plan, execute and support a global market anarchist evolution.

It’s time to start such an organization. Let’s call it Agora.

Goals

What are the goals of Agora? Here is an initial draft:

• to support our members in our individual searches for liberty, prosperity and self-realization, and to come to the aid of fellow members in times of crisis or need;
• to spread liberty across the globe and end the reign of nation-states by planning, executing and supporting a global market anarchist evolution;
• to incubate the institutions required to provide law, security and dispute resolution in a stateless world;
• to educate all of mankind in its birthright: liberty;
• to support and incentivize radical accountability, responsibility and integrity for every human being; and
• to cooperate with other private societies that share compatible goals, methods and standards.

Operations

What does Agora look like?

• It is managed by dApp (smart contract), perhaps via Aragon or district0x.
• New members are admitted via an application process.
• Membership has a price and carries benefits.
• Members must post a bond to ensure good behavior.
• Members who engage in coercion or fraud can be removed from the organization.
• Members vote on the rules (laws) of the organization. This is how lawmaking is bootstrapped.
• Members are obligated to come to the support of each other in case of crisis or need, in a way to be determined at the discretion of each member. This is how member security is initially bootstrapped.
• There is a mechanism for the resolution of disputes among members. This could be an arbitration panel or a simple vote. Members who refuse to respond to arbitration requests lose their bond, or some portion of it. This is how dispute resolution is bootstrapped.
• Members have access to an exclusive communications channel.
• Members vote on how to spend the organization’s budget in pursuit of the organization’s goals.

The Agora organization is the base layer. Other layers can be built on top of it in the form of projects. Here are some examples that come to mind:

• Mutual Aid: Members can join a mutual aid society within the organization.
• Incubator: Members can compete to receive seed capital for entrepreneurial projects that serve Agora’s mission.
• Education: Members can receive funding to educate people around the world in market anarchist ideas via personal improvement training, entrepreneurship workshops, activism training, and more.
• Crisis Response: Members can create projects to respond to some crisis in the world, as a means of experimenting with market anarchist ideas, supporting allies, for public relations or some other reason.

Next Steps

Join the Agora Discord. Work starts today.

If you want to see a freed world where nation-states are obsolete, then the Agora organization is a no-brainer.

You can also join the discussions at Reddit, Steemit and YouTube.

Photo by Tran Phu on Unsplash

The post Make the Agora Great Again appeared first on More Liberty Now.

CACR15, "relating to legal actions. Providing that taxpayers have standing to bring actions against the government," before the NH Senate Rules and Enrolled Bills Committee, 3/29/2018, followed by the Committee's ultimately unconsummated Executive Session.

The only testimony nominally against the bill -- yet they're taking no official position -- comes from the Judicial Branch, which essentially "helpfully" warns (except without the "strike me down first" part)...



No one takes them seriously, at least.

So I ask again, if voting-eligible taxpayers, in government's self-written, very self-serving rulebook, may not hold their own servant government's spending accountable, who will? If taxpayers don't have "standing," don't "have skin in the game" -- by definition -- who the hell does...?

Look for this coming soon to a ballot near you. Tell your Senator you expect no less.

Close your eyes and take a deep sniff of this. Give it a swirl. Fill your olfactory. Its nose tells you this is well aged. Hints of liberty and expressly limited servant government. Peer through it in the strong light of day and examine its clarity. And plenty of legs, this. Now take a sip. Let it roll around on your palate. Full-bodied, to be sure. History in a glass. Solemn sincerity with just a touch of insouciance. And a rebellious finish. This belongs in any respectable Constitutional cellar. Contemplate the possibilities.

This is CACR16, "Relating to privacy. Providing that an individual's right to live free of governmental intrusion is natural, essential, and inherent." Fundamental, even, in a free society. Having cleared the NH House (a little surprisingly, really -- more on that anon), today before the Senate Rules and Enrolled Bills Committee, 3/29/2018.

It should be noted -- and the ever-bewildering Rep Horrigan should appreciate -- that he voluntarily contractually consented (and if it's not in there, then sue) to his Facebook dossier. And it is not -- ever -- government's responsibility nor prerogative to protect him from what he or it consider to be his own bad choices.

And I just gotta say again, although I've agreed with the League of Women Voters' analysis of the bill since I first because aware of it, while the potential implications concern them, I absolutely revel in the possibilities...

Look for it coming soon to a ballot near you. Tell your Senator you expect no less.

Blockchain in the Energy Sector: Can Government Be Educated?

State House presentation on blockchain in the energy sector

Tuesday, March 27 at 1 PM - 2:30 PM
Science, Technology & Energy Committee, LOB Room 304

Should it need to be in a free society, in a market economy?

The high cost of energy in NH is a statewide issue that negatively effects the business climate and economy. Our regional energy grid is arcane and centralized, being governed by ISO New England in Massachusetts. This presentation will explore the potential to transform the grid into one in which many more participants become consumers, storage providers, and producers of energy, with accounts settled using blockchain technology in a more decentralized fashion.

The presentation will be for the benefit of the committee but the public is welcome to attend.

Presenters will be:
Sandra Ro of Global Blockchain Business Council
Dr. Lee Brenner of Global Blockchain Business Council 
Daniel Heller, CFO of BitLumens, Switzerland
James Eggleston of PowerLedger, Australia

Intro by House Science, Technology and Energy Committee chair, Dick Barry.

(Originally Scheduled Presenters had been:
Sandra Ro of Global Blockchain Business Council
Michael Casey of MIT Media Lab, author of The Truth Machine
James Eggleston of PowerLedger, Australia
Veronica Garcia of BitLumens, Switzerland)

And, too, explore The Math Behind Bitcoin with Dr. Darren Tapp.

Something is a recent blog post by Rod Dreher reminded me of a scene from a play.  The play, Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee, dramatizes the 1925 trial of John Scopes who was eventually convicted and fined $100 for the crime of teaching evolution in a Tennessee public school.  It was the conflict of science vs. religion, enlightenment vs. bigotry, knowledge vs. ignorance.  In a dramatic climax science and enlightenment delivered a crushing defeat to the forces of ignorance. Though John Scopes and his fictional counterpart Bert Cates were both convicted, science and knowledge were vindicated in a fiery courtroom confrontation in which the progressive defense attorney thoroughly discredited the Christian conservative.

DRUMMOND (Sharply) The first day. Was it a twenty-four-hour day?

BRADY The Bible says it was a day.

DRUMMOND There wasn’t any sun. How do you know how long it was?

BRADY (Determined) The Bible says it was a day.

DRUMMOND A normal day, a literal day, a twenty-four-hour day? (Pause. BRADY is unsure.)

BRADY I do not know.

DRUMMOND What do you think?

BRADY (Floundering) I do not think about things that . . . I do not think about!

DRUMMOND Do you ever think about things that you do think about? (There is some laughter. But it is dampened by the knowledge and awareness throughout the courtroom, that the trap is about to be sprung) Isn’t it possible that first day was twenty-five hours long? There was no way to measure it, no way to tell! Could it have been twenty-five hours?

But in his blog post, The Backlash Is Building, Dreher shows that roles have gotten reversed over the decades.  In 1925 the public school teacher was punished for teaching the forbidden knowledge, the theory of evolution because it was said to contradict the story of Genesis as told in the Bible.  Progressives fought against that law and fought against the notion that there are some ideas that need to be suppressed.  Nowadays the progressives are the ones who punish heretical thought. 

When former Google engineer James Damore wrote an internal memo suggesting that Google's management might try a different strategies in their efforts to promote diversity at Google, retribution against him was swift and harsh.  His sin was to suggest that there are differences between men and women that might be taken into consideration.  Damore was fired.  But then unexpectedly, Damore's firing raised something of a backlash in the progressive ranks.

One of Dreher's readers writes:

The firing of James Damore back in August was what really made me start hesitating about my previous view that “political correctness” was, as Vox, the New Yorker, and all the other right-thinking people say, a Fox News attempt to discredit politeness. Here was a guy who was making a calm, carefully reasoned argument that some of Google’s diversity initiatives might not be the best way to achieve diversity, and that Googlers should be free to criticize such policies. In response, not only was he fired (and with a publicity that basically guarantees he’ll never work for a Silicon Valley firm again), but he was subjected to a regularly scheduled bout of Two Minutes’ Hate every day for weeks.

Now, I have no idea whether Damore’s arguments were sound. For all I know, the studies he cited might be garbage or his inferences might be wrong, although I doubt it, in light of at least some psychologists’ willingness to come forward and defend some of his claims. I have no investment in whether his arguments were successful, and for that matter, I doubt he did either. The point is that the very possibility of debate on this issue was foreclosed.

Dreher's leftist reader gets it about the nature of political correctness:  it's purpose is to end debate or preclude the possibility of it.  But I find the reader's disinterest in the soundness of Damore's arguments to be astonishing.  Why would one not examine Damore's arguments and form an opinion?  If Damore's ideas are so heretical that to voice them is to risk firing, blackball, and possibly financial ruin, isn't it worth the investment of a little time and effort to understand what they are?  What could be that bad about them?  Dreher's reader wasn't interested.

Or maybe there is some defensive self censorship going on.  But doesn't that seem particularly timid? Don't progressives pride themselves on speaking truth to power?  In this case truth was spoken anonymously.  Still, it's an encouraging development that progressive authority is questioned.  But even as they inch away from progressive dogma, doubters seem reluctant to think about things that they don't think about -- not interested in the soundness of opposing arguments.

Another of Dreher's leftist readers confessed:

I found myself perplexed that so many of the wonderful, God fearing people that I knew and loved had voted for Trump.

And so, for the first time in my life I began to really read people with whom I did not agree. I read conservative Reformed writers. I began to read your blog. I sought out other voices, some that had voted for Trump, some that fell closer to the “Never Trumper” category.

An amazing thing happened. I began to see that there were enormous logical inconsistencies in some of the things that I had thought, especially on cultural issues. I saw that my beliefs couldn’t stand up to rigorous thought and scrutiny. And more than that, if I claimed Christ, there were things that I believed and espoused, especially regarding abortion and sexuality, that had to change. I had gone looking for intellectual rigor and much to my surprise I found it not in Cultural Leftism, but in orthodox Christian, especially Reformed (broadly defined), thought.

So where do I find myself now? I still see Trump and his crew as an existential threat to our Republic. The wholesale destruction of democratic norms and the open and blatant corruption pains me (I might be unusual among [former] Leftists in that I have always had a great love of the Republic, with all of its flaws and foibles. It comes, I think, from being a deep student of the Revolutionary era).

The first thing that astonishes me is the confession that it might be unusual for leftists to harbor any "great love of the Republic."  We on the right always suspected as much.  There is certainly no love of the Constitution among progressives, but we never expected anyone come right out and say it.

The second thing that stood out was the admission of awakening to "enormous logical inconsistencies" in his own thinking, which came about when he began reading conservative writers.  Then in the very next paragraph, he says that he sees "Trump and his crew as an existential threat to our Republic."  He is pained by the "wholesale destruction of democratic norms," though it's not obvious to me what democratic norms have been destroyed.  But allow me to point out a logical inconsistency.  DACA.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.  DACA was the invention of former President Barack Obama.  Neither the House nor the Senate passed any legislation that would protect "undocumented" children -- those who were illegally brought to America, through no fault of their own -- from deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  Obama provided such protections for "Dreamers" by executive order. Doing so was so far outside of traditional democratic norms, that it should be considered unconstitutional.  Congress, the legislative branch, is supposed to pass legislation that the president signs or vetoes.  The president, the executive branch, is not supposed to make law on his own, yet the left embraces Obama's undemocratic imposition of DACA.

The DACA program was formed through executive action by former President Barack Obama in 2012 and allowed certain people who came to the U.S. illegally as minors to be protected from immediate deportation. Recipients, called Dreamers, were able to request “consideration of deferred action” for a period of two years, which was subject to renewal.

When Trump set a March 5, 2018 deadline to end the DACA program, unilaterally rescinding what Obama unilaterally imposed, the left howled in rage and ran to the courts where they found a sympathetic judge who ruled that a sitting president did not have the power to rescind the undemocratic action of his predecessor, and ordered that the DACA program continue.  The Trump administration appealed, but the Supreme Court declined to take up the case until the normal appeals process has completed. 

Here's the irony.  Trump imposed the March 5th deadline in order to push the House and Senate toward passage of comprehensive immigration reform that would include resolving the status of the Dreamers. The passage of comprehensive immigration reform by the House and Senate would be in keeping with the founding fathers' notion of democratic norms.  Trump was attempting to empower Congress.  Somehow, progressives consider this an existential threat to our Republic.

As to Inherit the Wind, it turns out there was more dramatic license taken than I had originally imagined.  Henry Drummond, fictional attorney for the defense and enlightened hero of the play, defeated a straw man in his cross examination of the hapless and bigoted Matthew Harrison Brady.  Brady was a creature from the imaginations of Lawrence and Lee.  He represented William Jennings Bryan who submitted to cross examination by Clarence Darrow in the real life Scopes trial.  But Clarence Darrow did not do as well the fictional Drummond in his cross examination.  Here is how the real life confrontation went, according to a University of Minnesota Law Library paper by Michael Hannon.  Questions are from Clarence Darrow.  Answers are from William Jennings Bryan.

Q—Then, when the Bible said, for in stance, "and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day," that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours?
A—I do not think it necessarily does.
Q—Do you think it does or does not?
A—I know a great many think so.
Q—What do you think?
A—I do not think it does.
Q—You think those were not literal days?
A—I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days.
Q—What do you think about it?
A—That is my opinion--I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does.
Q—You do not think that?
A—No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.
Q—Do you think those were literal days?
A—My impression is they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days.

Unlike Brady, who lost all composure under the pressure of Drummond's questions, William Jennings Bryan was unflustered by Darrow's badgering.  Reading through the exchange I would have expected opposing counsel be jumping up to object: "Asked and answered," "Badgering the witness."  Further in the Hannon paper:

For later accounts it seems to make a difference whether the commentator actually read the transcripts of the two hour exchange between Darrow and Bryan and the contemporary accounts of the trial. Alan Dershowitz wrote of the Bryan versus Darrow duel:

"As usual, the real story, as told in the trial transcript and in contemporaneous accounts, was more complex and far more interesting. The actual William Jennings Bryan was no simple-minded literalist, and he certainly was no bigot. He was a great populist who cared deeply about equality and about the down-trodden."

Dershowitz also gives Bryan more credit than many other writers: “All in all, a reading of the transcript shows Bryan doing quite well defending himself, while it is Darrow who comes off quite poorly—in fact, as something of an antireligious cynic.”

There was an informality about the Scopes trial.  Bryan's testimony was voluntary. He was not sworn in.  As the trial progressed it was moved outside due to extreme summer heat.  They weren't sure at the end whether the judge or the jury should set the fine at $100.  It was a circus.  Through it all William Jennings Bryan held his own, contrary to what you might think if you get your history from the entertainment industry.

Funny to think that Inherit the Wind certain facts were suppressed in order to create the proper dramatic effect.  The play was about the battle to open young minds to theories of evolution, yet in making their point progressive playwrights had to hide the fact that the real life Christian conservative had held his own against the progressive in their debate over it.  Progressives are still busy hiding unfortunate facts.

Here's some background:

• Court orders almost $60k be removed from Weare default budget | New Hampshire
• Default budget: Weare case should show the way | New Hampshire
• The Kurk Decision | Coalition of NH Taxpayers
• Letter: Go with default budget in Weare
• Weare budget games | New Hampshire
• The Court Order

'Course, the subsequently revised default budget was lowered by the Select Board from $5,997,749 only to $5,997,260, with other crap defiantly added back in. Not quite the court-ordered $60k reduction. Not quite contrite...

This recalcitrant board will get the money that it wants from the taxpayers. Screw you meddlers...

And here's the result, at the subsequent Select Board meeting of 3/5/2018 (also at 39:20 - 41:45 of the full meeting available here): 'Thanks for your input. Now piss off...'




You're paying for these shenanigans -- and yes, I call shenanigans -- Mr. and Ms Taxpayer. And needless to say, this is hardly the first time: expensive lawsuits to control servants aren't financed on a whim, after all. Thank you, Rep. Neal Kurk (longtime House Finance Committee Chairman, if knowledge of government finances and their statutes are, y'know, relevant, somehow), for the effort. One way or another, this can't be over. These incumbents simply have got to go, "leaders" and longest-tenured first. Consistently. First pass next Tuesday...

And here, at the "Meet the Candidates Night", Select Board Chair Clow's answer to a voter's early question on this very aspect of the default budget at the 9-minute mark (through 17:00) -- and then the 2nd (at 23:00, and which he protested to the Moderator) -- was truly... utterly classic Clow, who has got to go....





Next issue: Article 23 of the 2018 Weare Town Warrant (today as I amend this, 3/13/2018, is voting day, btw)

As Proposed

"Shall the Town vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to dispose of all tax deeded property by public auction or sealed bid, regardless of its size? The authority granted in 1994 limited the selectmen’s authority to sell tax deeded property to properties of less than 5 acres (land only) or 10 acres (if developed with a residence). (Recommended by Board of Selectmen)"

(their intention being to free up the board to dispose of any damned thing they seize without any further nettlesome taxpayer oversight -- ever)


As Amended by Voters at the Deliberative Session of 2/10/2018

"Shall the Town vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to dispose of all tax deeded property by public auction or sealed bid, regardless of its size? The authority granted in 1994 limited the selectmen’s authority to sell tax deeded property to properties of less than 5 acres (land only) or 10 acres (if developed with a residence). (Recommended by Board of Selectmen)"

(the result of this amended article, pass or fail, would be to leave them with exactly the same authority they already had -- which is, if they have any bigger properties, they have to come to the voters for permission; at present, they have only 2 such properties, so it's not actually a problem that needs "fixing", they just chafe at oversight -- or... could there actually be something even more nefarious to it...?)


(this timestamp skips the early debate and goes straight to this [2nd of the afternoon] proposed [this by your humble chronicler] amendment -- and a "struck" official paper copy of the warrant is what I handed them, so the above text is exactly what they were looking at when they modified the ballot, no excuses -- and however otherwise unclear, Moderator Foss says, "struck through the word properties", so he understood, so how the hell do we end up with...)


As Published on the Ballot for 3/13/2018

"Shall the Town vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to dispose of all tax deeded property by public auction or sealed bid, regardless of its size? The authority granted in 1994 limited the selectmen’s authority to sell tax deeded property to properties of less than 5 acres (land only) or 10 acres (if developed with a residence). (Recommended by Board of Selectmen)"

So a dependent clause ("regardless of its size") that doesn't functionally change the meaning of the original article because it's still implied ("of all tax deeded property") has been removed (as instructed by the voters), but leaving no limit on board authority (as desired by the board) by also again removing the 1994 limit that was intentionally returned to the article question at the Deliberative Session, thereby neutering it. The last sentence is now again merely an historical explanatory note, rather than reintegrated into the question as an ongoing restriction. And just like the original article, it still implies to the voter in the voting booth that the purpose of this question is to remove that limit.

Last point: Why would the Selectmen still recommend this if it doesn't actually do anything, if it doesn't give them what they want?

Are my grammar skills that lacking? Is this deliberate? Is this another lawsuit necessary for taxpayers to control their servants? Have you voted against Chairman Clow yet...?

This recalcitrant board will get the power that it wants from the taxpayers. Screw you meddlers...



Followup at the next Select Board meeting of 3/19/2018...

My response to the complaint that at the Deliberative Session, the Board gets too many 'proposed amendment' notes scrawled on a napkin should have simply been, "Was that the cause of confusion for this article?" No. No, it wasn't...



Assurances are great. I guess we'll just have to see if they survive elections -- and how many...

Byron York asks, "Why are the Comey memos secret?" You may recall that James Comey memorialized certain conversations he had with President Trump in form of memos to himself.  He then leaked them to the New York Times through a friend of his, Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman.  He leaked the memos, he told Congress, for the purpose of getting a special prosecutor appointed.

Success!  That special prosecutor is Robert Mueller, who has convinced Judge James Boasberg that disclosure of those very memos "could reasonably be expected to interfere" with Mueller's ongoing investigation.  According to Congressman Trey Gowdy, Mueller and the Judge are correct.  Disclosure would interfere with the investigation.

"I have read the memos," Gowdy said on Fox News "Special Report" Monday. "They would be defense Exhibit A in an obstruction of justice case — not prosecution exhibit, defense Exhibit A. If Comey felt obstructed, he did a masterful job of keeping it out of the memos."

An obvious explanation for keeping the secret memos secret is that disclosure might reveal how utterly without merit an investigation into Trump campaign collusion with Russia really is, and by extension the pointlessness of trying to obstruct it.  All of which might hasten the point at which Mueller and his team of Clinton-contributing, Democratic prosecutors are out of work.

On the other hand, maybe Mueller is not really investigating Trump connections to Russia, but has other reasons for keeping the investigation open.  The Mueller-wears-a-White-Hat theory has Mueller investigating the investigators, perhaps in cooperation with the DOJ Inspector General.  Seems unlikely, but it's possible.  If we see indictments for lying to, or misleading, the FISA Court, or falsifying FBI form 302s, we will know which hat Robert Mueller wears, white or black.

Last updated February 15, 2018 at 12.38

You don't even need to trouble yourself over whether it's a violation of your liberty, subject. They'll decide that for you, too. Indeed, they already have.

And they'll decide that driving on roads that you are compelled to pay for is nevertheless somehow a mere government-granted "privilege" -- despite the fact that even the Supreme Court has acknowledged that travel is a Constitutionally protected natural right, the mode of which is nowhere authorized to be constrained, any more than are the modes of, say, speech or self-defense. We've simply allowed government, relentlessly operating well above its pay grade, to decide otherwise. (Time to regain some control, mayhaps? Is there a better place to make that stand than the "Live Free or Die" state...?)

So just submit. No need to thank them, really; surrendering to them control over your choices is thanks enough. Ok, almost enough...

HB1259, "relative to passenger restraints", gets an airing out -- yet it still stinks in here -- before the NH House Transportation Committee, 2/6/2018. And how 'bout that? Your humble chronicler was called upon to deliver the "rebuttal". No time to get (more) nervous, at least...

We've been here before, of course. But mercifully not since 2009's HB383 (this really is an awesome tool). But sadly yet entirely predictably, "the usual tired parade of government authoritarians and Utopian socialists" hasn't gotten any less tired over the intervening 9 years.

Had enough? Let your representatives know. See if they actually understand that they are...

Press

• Buckle up for new fight in old battle over adult seat belt use in N.H.
• NH lawmakers revisit mandatory seatbelt law | New Hampshire
• Seat belt bill debated again in NH House
• Seat Belt Use in 2016 -- Use Rates in the States and Territories (pdf)
• Top 10 Most Dangerous States To Drive In | HuffPost

How fitting that it was a Kennedy who delivered the Democrats' response to President Trump's State of the Union address.  Real Clear Politics billed it this way:

"Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III, scion of one of America’s top political dynasties, is speaking after President Trump’s State of the Union address."

Last night the latest Kennedy aristocrat to burst onto the national scene launched into a diatribe remarkable for being so transparently dishonest, vicious, spiteful, and hypocritical. One straw man after another bit the dust as the photogenic Kennedy sought to establish himself as the new face of the same old Democratic party.  Good luck with that. 

Democrats may be looking to Joe Kennedy III to follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama whose breakout speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention inspired the nation and led to his election to the presidency only four years later.  Yet their speeches were not that alike.  Obama's held out the promise of unity, false promise that it was.  Funny that he noted there were those who would divide Americans, and then later we find that he, Obama, would be the divider.

"Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."

Kennedy on the other hand takes division as the given.  The good, represented by himself and like minded aristocrats, must defeat the Trump-inspired racist rabble.

"This administration isn’t just targeting the laws that protect us – they are targeting the very idea that we are all worthy of protection.
For them, dignity isn’t something you’re born with but something you measure.

By your net worth, your celebrity, your headlines, your crowd size.

Not to mention, the gender of your spouse. The country of your birth. The color of your skin. The God of your prayers.

Their record is a rebuke of our highest American ideal: the belief that we are all worthy, we are all equal and we all count. In the eyes of our law and our leaders, our God and our government.

That is the American promise."

According the Joe Kennedy III, we are all worthy, equal, and we all count in the eyes of our law, our leaders, our God, and government.  Except somehow I don't think Hillary, or James Comey, or Loretta Lynch, or even Kennedy himself believe any of it.  In light of the sham investigation that held Hillary blameless for ignoring laws that sent others to jail, how could they believe it?  The law was certainly not intended to apply to Joe's great uncle Ted.  Ted Kennedy, you may recall, drove his car off a bridge and into a Chappaquiddick Island tidal channel with Mary Jo Kopechne in it.  He saved his own skin, but then didn't bother to report the accident for nine hours.  And he didn't bother to save Mary Joe.  She drowned, trapped in his car underwater.

Yes, Joe's speech was dishonest, vicious, and spiteful, but Joe Kennedy III was also being really dumb.  Really dumb.  Dumb like Hillary with her deplorables comment.  Kennedy had this to say about our year of strong economic growth and optimism:

"We see an economy that makes stocks soar, investor portfolios bulge and corporate profits climb but fails to give workers their fair share of the reward.
A government that struggles to keep itself open.

Russia knee-deep in our democracy.

An all-out war on environmental protection.

A Justice Department rolling back civil rights by the day.

Hatred and supremacy proudly marching in our streets."

The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner with identity politics.  Americans tend to reject policies that they see as encroachments on their freedoms, yet that's what the Democrats are constantly trying to sell to the voters.  Democrats have no issues that are not transparently about increasing their own power.  Democrats support labor unions and mandatory unionization wherever possible because union dues become party contributions.  Democrats support federal regulations on anything and everything because it provides an army of federal employees whose jobs depend on the Democrat vision of an ever expanding government, and because regulations can be used as weapons against political opponents.  Democrats support open borders and illegal immigration because Democrats depend on a stream of low income, unskilled workers who are more likely to become future Democratic voters.  Democrats oppose any form of voter ID validation because they make use of voter fraud in tight elections.

Most Americans do not belong to labor unions and many of those that do would prefer not to have mandatory dues automatically deducted from their pay.  Most Americans oppose unnecessary regulation and would prefer, if not smaller government, at least government that is efficient and cost effective.  Most Americans oppose illegal immigration.  Most Americans would like vote tallies to reflect an accurate count of legally cast ballots by eligible voters.  Democrats have decided that to win on these issues they have to convince voters that opposition is racist or cruel.

That leaves little else for Democrats to campaign on but the evil, the racism, the homophobia of whoever opposes them.  At the moment that happens to be Republicans, but the club could grow to include independents.  To use Hillary's words opponents are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it."  And just as Hillary miscalculated, Joe Kennedy III is not likely to shame anybody into anything.  Instead he will create even greater resentment in the hearts of Americans to those moralizing, pretentious progressives who want only to dictate to the rest of us.  Good luck, Joe.

I have had to take some time off from my activism (and to a lesser extent, my graphic design work) to care for my elderly grandfather.  I hope to return to full time activism and design freelancing eventually; however, my family is my primary focus at this point in time.  While I appreciate those who have contacted me with various projects, I am just not in the position to put my full focus on my work at this time, which isn’t fair to those looking for quality work.  My apologies to anyone who feels they have been overlooked.  I hope I can respond to everyone, but please do not take it personally

Hope I can return soon!