Wednesday • November 19 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.XLVII
Manchester, N.H.
This is not the first time Rep. Jim White has proposed this legislation, but it is back after the Lewiston, Maine, shooting. The bill would make property owners of gun-free zones liable if disarmed individuals were harmed as a result of that restriction.
Do you agree?
Gun-free zones appear statistically to be the more significant threat to public safety. Shooters, regardless of their grasp of reality, always seem capable of choosing locations where people are known to be disarmed. Making these areas less common can only limit victim-rich environments and, by extension, (perhaps) the incidents themselves.
A simple public safety measure opposed by public safety advocates, which Rep White is trying to get around.
White’s bill is similar to one that came before the Legislature in 2017 and was opposed by the Maine Gun Safety Coalition and the Retail Association of Maine. It was voted down in committee and didn’t get a vote by the full Legislature.
The idea has virtually no chance of winning the support of the Democratic controlled Legislature, which this year easily rejected efforts to allow guns in schools based on some of the same arguments.
But the bill highlights an ongoing national debate about the impact of gun-free zones, especially in communities that have been hit hard by gun violence.
“I think the situation in Lewiston might bring to light the necessity of this,” said White, who owns J. White Gunsmithing, a firearms shop in Guilford. “The most vulnerable among us are put in a more vulnerable situation because of these gun-free zones.”
We might feel inclined to say something like, how can you embrace the idea of the government adding another layer of enforcement upon property owners? The answer, I think, is that we’re not. We’re removing it. The Constitution is clear about the right to keep and bear arms. Principally, this is a defense against tyranny, specifically from your government. But there is no way to know precisely where, when, or how tyranny may present itself or through what machination. We uphold that right by prohibiting you from being disarmed anywhere you have a right to be (or have been invited).
As for tyrannous plots and intrigues (aside from the ones where we might think the government set up and triggered a shooter), many of the gunmen, after the fact, are revealed to be people known to the government (police, mental or public health, locals) who needed attention the State increasingly claims it is best suited to provide then does not—individuals who should trigger so-called safeguards that disarm others but never them.
The courts (also the government) have made it clear they (the government) have no obligation to protect you, so we presume this would include failing to prevent crimes whose scope rises as the result of laws that disarm us when it is clearly up to us to defend ourselves.
Rep, White’s law increasingly makes sense when confronted with all of that nonsense, but again, not in a state like Maine where Democrats increasingly control the government. Places where mass shootings will likely increase as a result of these facts. They will disarm you. They will allow others to disarm you. No one is or will be held responsible for what happens to you. Perhaps not even the shooter, who will likely end up dead, which is what many of them wanted or expected. Something an armed citizen could have provided much sooner with less injury and loss of life if permitted to exercise their natural right to defend themselves.
The post Should Owners of Gun-Free Zones Be Liable if Disarmed Citizens Are Shot or Killed? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Two new reports on Vermont’s Renewable Energy Standard, one by the Department of Public Service and Sustainable Energy Advantage and the other by an organization called Brattle, confirm what we’ve been pointing out for a long time – Vermont’s so-called green energy mandates are all cost and no benefit for the Vermonters who get stuck paying the bills.
And those costs are huge.
The DPS report focuses primarily on what the impact of the Renewable Energy Standard does to electric costs and ratepayers’ bills, and that will be the focus of this article. Brattle touches on this as well but also delves into the overall economic impact of the policy, which I will save for another time. (Spoiler alert: it’s all bad.)
The most important aspect of these two analyses is that they put the lie to the advocates’ talking point that the benefits of decarbonizing our economy and electrifying everything outweigh the costs. Nope.
The “big benefits” claim is based on a fiction wrapped in a fib called the “Social Cost of Carbon.” The Social Cost of Carbon is a mostly made-up calculation that attempts to affix a price to the negative economic impacts of releasing a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. It is highly subjective. Under the last three administrations, it has been officially pegged at $43 a ton (Obama), $3 to $5 a ton (Trump), and $51 a ton (Biden).
If you’re a fan of The Office, think of the Social Cost of Carbon as like Kevin’s magical accounting number, keleven, defined wonderfully by the Urban Dictionary as “a fictitious number used by an incompetent or corrupt individual to balance accounting books.” So, when the costs of your ideological “green” boondoggle are going to cost voters $2 billion, likely upsetting them, just add your $2.2 billion social cost of carbon keleven to the ledger, and presto, you’re back in the black!
A year ago, I wrote an in-depth article on the Social Cost of Carbon; the Climate plan’s costs are real. Savings, not so much, if you want more on this topic. But the short version of the gimmick is that while the costs of green energy policies are born entirely by Vermonters, any benefits are spread thinly across the globe. This means that only an infinitesimally minuscule, undetectable amount of any benefit from Vermonters’ “investment” actually accrues to Vermonters.
As explained by Dean Murphy of Brattle, “The increment of global carbon emissions or the decrement to global carbon emissions from Vermont going from its current RES (Renewable Energy Standard) to 100 percent will be very, very small. And the impact that will be felt globally will be very, very small because Vermont is a very small part of the world. And those increments to those costs in Vermont of flooding, climate change, changes in temperature, etcetera, because Vermont’s own contribution to the global climate is very small, the effects that you feel in Vermont are very small. You’ll feel much more impact from what happens in China and India than you will from what you did in Vermont.”
What’s happening in China and India is not carbon reduction—quite the opposite. The same goes for Russia and most if not all of the developing world in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In other words, Vermont will see no benefits – cost-wise or trauma-wise — from reduced flooding or other impacts from severe weather in the future as a result of our renewable energy policy. The money we waste on these policies, however, is money we won’t have to prepare for any future natural disasters caused by the two new Chinese coal-fired power plants that come online every week. Or just Mother Nature doing her thing?
So, when advocates for these policies say, yes, we may be throwing hundreds of millions of your dollars at this, but we have to balance the cost of paying for these policies with the cost of floods, etc, you are free and encouraged to go ahead and point and shout “liar, liar, pants on fire.” There is no balance. In fact, we get stuck paying for both the cost of “going green” and any natural disaster that might have been prevented if we used that money to adapt to cope with evolving weather patterns.
Now, exactly how much money are we pouring into this hole of no return? According to TJ Poor of the Department of Public Service, if we continue with our current “business as usual” Renewable Energy Standard policy it will cost Vermont ratepayers about $130 million a year extra on our electric bills. If we adjust the Renewable Energy Standard along the lines of what is currently being proposed by the Renewable Energy Standard Working Group, that increases by another $50 million per year to $190 million per year.
Think of this a “Green Virtue Signaling Tax.” We get almost no material benefit for this otherwise unnecessary expense at a tremendous opportunity cost.
As Poor concludes, Vermont’s Renewable Energy policy “is not cost-effective for Vermont ratepayers…. And so those are the tradeoffs that we need to evaluate… how much Vermont ratepayers should pay for societal benefits.” I can tell you that our elected so-called representatives have a very different idea about what that number should be than do the people who are sticking with the bill.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics, including three years of service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free-market think tank. He is also a regular contributor to VermontGrok.
The post Two New Studies Show Renewable Energy Policy Is All Cost/No Benefit for Ratepayers appeared first on Granite Grok.
Milei won the election with 56% of the general election vote, more than any US President has attained in a general election since Reagan in 1984. And the Argentine turnout of 76% of voters is far higher than we have experienced in over a century. Biden allegedly won in 2020 with around 80 million votes out of 340 million Americans (less than a quarter of the humans). Milei’s 14 million votes amounts to almost a third of the humans in Argentina.
The post Anarchist Milei Wins Argentine Presidency; Begins Gutting Government ASAP appeared first on The Liberty Block.
Gender clinics welcome parent involvement as long as they do what they’re told.
Dartmouth Health recently testified that giving children puberty blockers and hormones is “rendered following consultation with medical and mental health professionals and parents and guardians.” But parents are given one option: social and medical transition.
Parents who push back against puberty blockers and hormones for their children can expect to face emotional blackmail and end runs around their authority.
Dartmouth Health coerces moms and dads with the suicide myth. They tell parents that their children are at immediate risk of suicide unless parents affirm their delusions and agree to let the clinic provide what they euphemistically call “gender-affirming care” (GAC). (Related: Trans or Die: The Ideological Blindness of a Dartmouth Health Endocrinologist.)
Detransitioner Prisha Mosley described this emotional blackmail when she testified to Maine legislators about the 15-minute appointment where she was diagnosed as being transgender:
She asked questions like ‘Do you like your period? Do you get along better with boys?’ And when I answered those questions honestly, she looked me in my eyes and told me ‘You are a boy.’ I remember my dad looking like he was in shock, and my mother was crying, and they just asked them, ‘Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?”
We get a sense of the pressure Dartmouth Health puts on parents from pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Frances Lim-Liberty’s Concord Monitor Op-Ed. “I had seen Nick a couple of months ago, and the family was ready to start gender-affirming hormone therapy at that visit. Today, they were no longer on the same page.”
When the parents expressed concern that their daughter might change her mind, Lim-Liberty responded, “But what if he doesn’t change his mind? What have we done then?”
Lim-Liberty conjures the suicide myth in another anecdote, this one about a boy whose parents had refused to sign the hormone consent form for three years. “My biggest fear manifested, would she make it to her 18th birthday, just three months away?” She describes her plans to wait out the parents. “I promise her we will start medical affirmation as soon as she turns 18.”
In her March testimony against HB619 which would ban sex-trait modifications for minors, Dartmouth Health internist Dr. Simrun Bal said that decisions about the medical transition of minors should be in the hands of the “patient, family, and physicians.” But she made it clear that she has no qualms about undermining parents who aren’t on board with social and medical transitions.
We often encounter parents who may not be supportive, and in that case the child turns to other trusted role models in their life, like teachers, peers, and others in the community who are leaders. I worry that not accessing those supportive social supports will mean difficulties in accessing care and going through a potential transition.
Even if parents find therapists and physicians who are concerned about the harms of GAC, our conversion therapy ban, signed by Gov. Chris Sununu, makes it a crime for them to help a confused girl learn to be comfortable with her own female body.
Parents and guardians can even lose custody if they don’t affirm their children’s new identity.
Until lawmakers regulate the medical industry or lawsuits end these practices, it’s important for parents to protect their children from white-coated activists who put profit and ideology above medical science and their patients’ welfare.
The post Night Cap: Sit Down and Shut Up: The Myth of Parent Involvement in Child Transing appeared first on Granite Grok.
What would be the difference between a Nikki Haley or Chris Christie presidency and a Biden presidency? Nothing positive IF you are an actual Republican. Haley/Christie would pour even more money (that we don’t have) into that military-industrial feed trough known as the War in Ukraine.
But that’s not a positive change IF you are an actual Republican.
Neither Haley nor Christie would actually close the border. Both are donor-class Republicans, and donor-class Republicans are essentially Democrats who want to cut taxes. Neither would actually reduce out-of-control spending. Instead, we would hear how cutting taxes will unleash economic growth, which will bring in more tax revenue (which is often true, but which the UniParty then immediately spends). Neither would actually “get tough” with China because the donor class believes in America-last … they call it free trade … trade policies.
Yet, if the polls are to be believed, one-third of New Hampshire “Republicans” are going to vote for these neocon imposters.
The post One -Third Of “Republicans” In New Hampshire Aren’t Even Republicans appeared first on Granite Grok.
Republicans in New Hampshire might want to call Lousiana and ask them what the secret sauce is to their recent electoral success. After Saturday’s run-off elections, “Republicans secured all of Louisiana’s statewide offices for the first time since 2015.”
The GOP success, in a state that has had a Democrat in the governor’s office for the past eight years, means that Republicans secured all of Louisiana’s statewide offices for the first time since 2015. In addition, the GOP holds a two-third supermajority in the House and Senate.
Liz Murrill was elected as attorney general, Nancy Landry as secretary of state and John Fleming as treasurer. The results also mean Louisiana will have its first female attorney general and first woman elected as secretary of state.
Saturday’s election completes the shaping of Louisiana’s executive branch, where most incumbents didn’t seek reelection and opened the door for new leadership in some of the most powerful positions.
The media has played up Republican losses in an apparent effort to depress energy and turnout. You can’t win. Don’t bother trying. But Louisiana tells a different story. Successive victories have given Republicans control of every state office with supermajorities in both chambers of the legislature.
And maybe it’s not as big a story as it could be coming out of the otherwise dee-red South. Had it happened in New Hampshire, it might be more telling, but the Republicans here have struggled to win special elections with one bright spot. Recent Municipal elections went far better for the GOP than is the norm. Manchester, the State’s largest city, returned a Republican to the Mayor’s office after six years of Democrat rule. It also gave the board of alderman a favorable GOP majority.
The Louisana special election last Saturday had a low turnout, too, so we see the intersection. The Media and Dems are hyping wins to try and shore up a base that appears unwilling to come out in adequate numbers for every election consistently, and they are projecting that on Republicans.
No one doubts that the left is planning to steal 2024, but you must be “stealably” close to make it less noticeable. If they can’t get their voters to vote Dem in large enough numbers, it will be increasingly difficult to hide what they are doing.
I’m sure they’ll find a way around that, and as we’ve noted repeatedly from several authors, there’s no evidence Republicans are doing enough, if anything, to make it harder. Absent that, the rest of it is, as they say, rearranging deck chairs on another Titanic.
The post It’s Not all Bad News: Louisiana Republicans Just Took Complete Control of State Government appeared first on Granite Grok.
Last week, on November 10, 2023, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario held a hearing as to whether the revocation of Mark Trozzi’s medical license was the correct penalty.
The College had already made, on November 1st, a finding of dishonorable and unprofessional conduct — as Trozzi had, contrary to the “recommendations” of the College, written exemptions for patients from the Covid vaccine (“unless they had developed myocarditis from the first shot”), and had publicly questioned the science of the Pfizer vaccine.
Note: I see that Russ Payne, in a Letter to the Editor of The Weirs Times, says that the shot has killed more young men than died in the Vietnam War. Thank you, Weirs Times, for publishing that. (What am I saying? This is New Hampshire, right?)
Dr Trozzi’s “penalty phase” hearing was open to the public via Zoom, which I attended. We were told not to record it or even take a screenshot or face a large fine. Don’t know if it’s something I could be extradited to Canada for, but anyway, I stayed my hand. Note: Trozzi’s punishment — for doing the right thing — includes a $71,000 billing to the doctor of the Tribunal’s costs. Not chickenfeed!
Still, Dr. Trozzi’s attorney, Mr. Michael Alexander, rose to the occasion by submitting that the matter of free expression, a Charter right in Canada, was relevant to the penalty. He said that the punishment of Trozzi for speaking out could have a chilling effect on other doctors. He also held forth and was not shouted down on the principle of distrusting government. “That’s why we have checks and balances; that’s why we maintain sovereignty of the provinces” — etc.
Ms. Whitner, whom I took to be the tribunal’s prosecutor, said that Mark Trozzi is not limited in what he can say but what he can say as a physician. She referred to his holding the privilege of the right to practice medicine in Ontario.
If it’s a privilege, who has the right to bestow that privilege? How does it get to be called a “privilege.” Presumably, a government saw that there was a need for standards of the medical industry, and consulted with that industry, who then provided the standards. Please see my new book, “Society Is the Authority.”
You should have heard Ms Whitner going on about the sins (she did not say ‘sins’) of Dr Trozzi, such as that he peddled (she did not say ‘peddled’) misinformation. Of course, she did say ‘misinformation,’ as that is one of the counts on which he has been charged.
I feel sorry for Ms Whitner. Not because she is a liar. Rather, because she is not a liar, I gather that she thinks anything that comes out of Pharma or WHO is trustworthy. I am sure she believes it is wrong for a doctor to discourage vaccination. Not because the College forbids it but because it is just plain wrong to discourage vaccination!
Ms Whitner must have been intelligent enough to get into medical school and intelligent enough to graduate therefrom. She must have, at one point, learned about Dr. Semmelweis and how he had been right even though he was drummed out of practicing obstetrics. The Semmelweis phenomenon is well known. Does Dr Whitmer think that Semmelweis is the only ‘Semmelweis’?
Turning the Tables
But now, enough! Enough with whimpering about such sad things as the injustice to Trozzi or the loss of cognition by Whitner. Let’s get down to business. Police business. When will the murderous vaccinations stop?
As far as I am aware, there have been no indictments for homicide or even for manslaughter. There may be some lawsuits in the works for wrongful death, but that is not enough. At least one state has passed a law to prevent infants from being given a Covid shot.
I am currently on the FITN ballot for the Republican Presidential primary on 23 January. I am going to push for the arrest of Fauci, as demanded by Senator Rand Paul. And if Merrick Garland does not cooperate, then the arrest of Garland for obstruction of justice.
But even that does not punch hard enough. Thousands of people were deliberately murdered.
Oh, and I propose the extraditing of Albert Bourla, president of Pfizer. We all know that the US and the UK have an extradition treaty unless you’ve never heard the name “Assange” — who, in any case, is an Australian citizen, thus bringing up the whole area of hosti humani generis — the ultimate in extraterritorial law.
Wow, I never thought I’d be talking hosti humani generis. Skies the limit! Let’s go, Granite Staters!
— Mary Maxwell can be reached at her website www.ConstitutionAndTruth.com On the Saturday after Thanksgiving, November 25, from 12 noon to 2pm, Mary will conduct a friendly meeting at which you can put forth suggestions for amending the US Constitution. It’s BYOA. (Bring your own anger.) Venue: Concord Community Center, 16 Canterbury Rd, adjacent to the Walgreens on Loudon Rd.
The post Vax Critic Not Giving Up, Even With His Medical License Hanging in the Balance appeared first on Granite Grok.
We welcomed Meagan to the show as a new co-host; is it possible that Jews are moving left and will that last? Is Nikki Haley’s war-hawkishness in tune with the base of the party? Is Desantis’ lacking the stridency of Haley and Ramaswamy in debates what keeps him from catching on with primary voters? Are immigrants choosing to leave the U.S. because it does not live up to what they were promised and isn’t that to be encouraged? San Francisco cleaning up for Xi Jinping; will this make people realize that government can be competent? Ed P. – “clean streets for Xi but not for thee”
The post The Conservatarian Exchange Podcast #180 appeared first on The Liberty Block.
In a recent video, Donald Trump unveiled his latest campaign promise: Give the socialists what they have been striving for - a socialist college system administered and funded by the federal government that is tuition-free. Chuck and Nate from ‘Liberty At Night’ pointed out, the program would not likely be completed before 2028, at which point Trump would have to leave office, anyway. (When’s the last time the government efficiently created a huge new program?) In 2029, the socialist college would be controlled by President Newsom or Warren…what could go wrong?
The post Trump Loves Free College, Haley Hates Privacy appeared first on The Liberty Block.
NEW HAMPSHIRE – For the first time in the state’s recorded history, legislators in the New Hampshire House of Representatives have filed two bills aimed at giving voters the opportunity to vote on whether or not New Hampshire will peacefully secede from the United States of America.
State Representative Matthew Santonastaso (R – Cheshire 18) has sponsored a groundbreaking new bill that will force the creation of a Secession Study Committee in the Granite State. This comes on the heels of a bill filed recently by State Rep. Jason Gerhard (R – Merrimack 25) that if passed, would allow voters to amend the New Hampshire Constitution, declaring that the state will secede from the United States should the national debt reach a staggering $40 trillion.
The Secession Study Committee, as envisioned by the bill, won’t just be a cursory look into New Hampshire declaring its peaceful independence from the United States. It will delve into understanding the multifaceted implications, the potential benefits, and the challenges that New Hampshire might face if it were to consider seceding from the Union. This initiative underscores the urgency and importance of having a well-informed discussion on the subject.
Representative Santonastaso stated,“Given the current challenges at the federal level and potential unforeseen changes in the national landscape, it’s essential to study the feasibility of an independent New Hampshire. This effort is not about neglecting our shared history; it’s about proactive planning and ensuring our state shall persist under any circumstance.”
Carla Gericke, President Emeritus of New Hampshire’s Free State Project, weighed in on the matter, stating “The increase in the number of New Hampshireites, and now our legislators, who support peacefully exiting the Union, is indicative of the Biden admin’s complete and utter failure to represent the interests of our state. The federal government have nobody to thank but themselves for the inevitable result – more and more of us want to choose freedom.”
Matt Sabourin dit Choinière, the chairman of the New Hampshire Independence Political Action Committee, commented “The purpose of these bills is to get the tough questions relating to independence out on the table, and then get some answers to the public, it’s basically an outline for future grand national strategy. My father always said growing up that if a private business were to operate the same way as the government, they’d be locked in prison. It’s time to fire D.C.”
In the state’s 2022 legislative session, the House rejected a proposal that would give voters the opportunity to amend the New Hampshire constitution, allowing the state to peacefully declare independence from the United States. While opponents of New Hampshire’s secessionist movement have historically argued that the federal government is a net positive or at the least can be molded into one, proponents have argued that the federal government is too far gone – citing issues such as inflation, ongoing wars abroad, and healthcare. New Hampshire is one of approximately 25 states that pays more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal funding.
Once introduced, both bills will move to committee for further discussion and review. If passed, the Secession Study Committee would be comprised of members from both the House and Senate, as well as experts in economics, law, and governance. Their findings would be presented to the state legislature for consideration.
For the full press release see: https://nhipac.org/2023/10/18/684/
This weekend, New Hampshire independence supporters launched a weekly outreach booth in Keene’s Railroad Square. In addition to sharing the word of peaceful secession with passers-by, they also conducted an informal poll, with 16 people voting to stay in the Union and 13 voting that NH should leave! Despite a fresh nationwide poll showing over 25% supporting secession for their respective states, one supporter of the federal Empire stopped at the booth to tell us that she knows everyone in New Hampshire hates us. She said secession will never happen, before storming across Main St.
Then, she turned around and came back across Main St to say something else. That’s when I pulled out my phone and started recording:
Afterwards, she went back across Main St and made a phone call. Keene police showed up minutes later and affirmed our right to record video. They also identified the woman as Democrat activist Margaret Sawyer.
The results are in from the second poll in two years asking the people of New Hampshire about their views on declaring peaceful independence from the United States. Last year, the Foundation for NH Independence commissioned a detailed poll from Survey USA which had 625 respondents and asked a couple dozen questions which measured people’s frustrations with the federal government in addition to their thoughts about whether or not New Hampshire should become an independent nation. It having been about a year since the previous poll, we decided it was time to do it again, though this time we had the chance to hire the University of New Hampshire to include several questions in their monthly “Granite State Poll“.
The Granite State Poll is a highly respected scientific polling organization in New Hampshire, and the cost wasn’t cheap so we zeroed in on the most important questions to ask. We worked with UNH’s Survey Center on the wording, which was changed somewhat from Survey USA’s. Three key questions were asked again and we added a new question to measure awareness. The UNH survey had 1,105 respondents, 76% more than the Survey USA sample. Unfortunately, the results were down across the board, in some cases by about half. Thankfully it wasn’t a total decimation, but advocates of NH Exit have a lot of work to do to increase awareness and persuade people to support peaceful independence. You can read the full NH Independence survey results from UNH here (PDF), which include demographic breakdowns.
The most positive overall result was the 28% who said “definitely not” or “probably not” to this question, “If New Hampshire were not already part of the United States, would you want New Hampshire to join?” However, that was down from 37% on a similar question in last year’s poll, which read, “If New Hampshire were not already part of the United States, it would be beneficial for the state to join, and be governed by DC”. This year, 46% of republicans said they’d definitely or probably not want to join the US, compared to 30% of independents and 11% of democrats. The demographic most likely to oppose joining the US was 35-49, with 35% against joining.
28% Definitely or Probably Wouldn’t Join USA
The big question though, asking specifically if people are ready to peacefully secede from the United States, did not fare as well as last year, though the question changed significantly from last year’s which was, “I would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country” which found 29% strongly or somewhat agreeing. This year’s question was more explicit: “Would you support or oppose New Hampshire peacefully seceding from the United States and governing itself as a separate country?”, to which only 16% strongly or somewhat supported, about one in six people. The language of this year’s question reflected the language of CACR 32 which was the proposed constitutional amendment that would have put the question to a vote last year, had it passed the legislature. Opposition to secession was very strong on this year’s question, with a full 70% strongly opposed and only 6% somewhat opposed to peaceful secession, compared to last year where it was 37% strongly disagreeing and 21% somewhat disagreeing with being an independent country.
Of course, it’s worth noting here that we are comparing apples to oranges somewhat as it’s not really fair to compare results to questions that were different, as everyone knows that the way questions are asked in a poll can have an effect on the results. Regardless, one thing that remained true across both polls on the independence question is that the most pro-independence demographic is people 35-49. Last time it was 27% of that demographic supporting independence and this time 24% supported peaceful secession. Republicans were more likely to support peaceful secession, with 31% strongly or somewhat supporting, compared to 21% of independents and 2% of democrats. UNH’s survey also asked respondents about their media consumption. Of the 59 respondents who identified as Joe Rogan listeners, 38% said this question didn’t matter / they were neutral – by far the largest segment of people who didn’t care about this question. Only 44% of Rogan listeners oppose peaceful secession, but bizarrely, 80% of Rogan listeners said they would support NH joining the union.
One in Six NH People Support Peaceful Secession, But 70% Strongly Opposed
The results were slightly better, as they were last year, for the question asking whether people support putting NH Independence to a vote. This year’s question was, “Would you support or oppose the idea of New Hampshire holding a vote to find out whether voters want New Hampshire to peacefully declare independence from the United States?” and 20% strongly or somewhat supported having a vote, down from last year’s 42% who said they strongly or somewhat supported the similarly worded, “Would you support or oppose the idea of New Hampshire holding a vote to find out whether voters want New Hampshire to peacefully separate from the US?” Again, republicans were more likely to support the vote with 31%, compared to 27% of independents and 8% of democrats. Ironic, considering all their talk about supporting democracy. Again, 35-49 year-olds were the strongest demographic supporting putting it to a vote, with 31% supporting. The next most supporting age demo was 50-64 at 22%.
One in Five Support Holding Vote on NH Independence
Again, curiously, Joe Rogan listeners stood out from the rest of the respondents with 33% support putting independence to a vote, while the second most supportive media group was conservative radio listeners at 24% support. Again, Rogan’s listeners were much more likely than any other media consumers to say that they were neutral or it didn’t matter to them – 42%! Rogan’s listeners were the only media group with an insignificant number of people strongly opposed to a vote, only 8%. Also, more of his listeners supported the vote than opposed it, 33% to 25%. Every other media group has massive opposition to a vote on independence, as you can see here from the below breakdown. Results go across left-to-right from Strongly Support, Somewhat Support, Neutral/Doesn’t Matter, Somewhat Oppose, Strongly Oppose, Don’t Know/Not Sure, and the total number of respondents that identified as that type of media consumer:
Media Consumption Breakdown on Vote Question
The new question on this year’s survey was regarding people’s awareness of the legislation last year: “In March of 2022, the N.H. House of Representatives rejected a proposed constitutional amendment calling for New Hampshire to peaceably declare independence from the United States and to govern itself as a separate country. How much do you recall hearing about this?” While barely anyone heard “a lot” about it, interestingly it was liberals whose awareness was higher on this than conservatives – 61% of liberals had heard something about it compared to 39% of conservatives, though liberals were far less likely to be supportive of independence, with only 1% of liberals supporting declaring peaceful independence compared to 26% of conservatives. Overall, 50% of survey respondents had heard nothing at all about the constitutional amendment last year.
Finally, UNH included a cross-tab graphic showing the relationship between opinions on secession and the theoretical question about joining the union. Excluding the obviously confused 1% who support secession but would also join the union, there are 15% who both support secession and wouldn’t join the US. There are another 9% who can see the wisdom of not joining the US, but are probably too afraid to leave the abusive federal gang:
15% Get it.
For the full demographic breakdowns, please see the full PDF provided by UNH that also lists the entire survey with all the month’s questions which also covered marijuana legalization, the debt ceiling, and immigration.
Did you notice some interesting things in the survey data that I missed in this article? Share your findings with the NH Exit community in our Matrix chat room (also on Telegram) or in the Forum.
Hopefully we’ll continue to perform polling on a yearly basis to see how beliefs change, especially as the federal oppression worsens under this administration and whichever tyrant gets elected in 2024. If a republican tyrant is elected in 2024, will the support for secession flip along R-D party lines?
On Wednesday morning, NHexit.US announced that local liberty activists in New Hampshire have hired a chartered airplane pilot to fly a pro-independence banner over the three largest cities in the state. Over the past few years, the calls for serious discussions on peaceful separation of New Hampshire from DC and the union have grown dramatically. New Hampshire is already home to the most influential liberty movement in the world.
Notable events since 2021 include:
This Saturday, an airplane banner could be added to that list. The tentative plan is for the banner to fly over Nashua, Manchester, and Concord. If you look up while in one of these cities, you just might be able to snap a photo or record a video of the banner. We encourage our readers to post their photos to social media with the tags #NHexit, #secession, and #NHpolitics.
Additionally, the question of secession will be asked by another highly reputable pollster. The University of New Hampshire is currently conducting a political survey that includes multiple questions related to New Hampshire independence. The results could be published within days or a few weeks.
The post Secession Airplane Banner Flying Over Merrimack Valley Saturday appeared first on Foundation for New Hampshire Independence.
AI Biplane Over NH
On the advice of Daniel Miller of the Texas Nationalist Movement, who has been a big supporter of NH Independence, we’re hiring a pilot to tow a pro-secession banner over New Hampshire’s biggest cities this Saturday, May 27th!
It’s not cheap, but it should definitely get some attention. The idea is that online or big media ads are too common and it’s hard to stand out, however aerial banners are relatively rare and tend to get people talking.
You can help get the word out about this flight, especially if you’re in the Nashua, Manchester, Concord corridor. Here’s how: if you see the plane – take a photo or video and share it on your social media with #NHexit. Of course, you should also mention your support for peaceful NH Independence.
Further, you can join our NHexit chat room on Matrix or Telegram for updates on where the plane has been spotted. It’s also a great place to keep up with the goings-on in the NH Independence movement.
New Hampshire Independence PAC Chairman Matt Sabourin dit Choinière was this week’s guest on “Free State Live”, the weekly video show hosted by Free State Project movers and liberty-loving NH natives. Of course, they discussed peaceful NH independence. Watch the full episode here:
Pro-Independence Rep Matt Santonastaso RE-ELECTED!
Earlier this year, the historic NH Independence constitutional amendment, CACR 32, was voted on in the state house. Thirteen brave state representatives stood in favor of allowing the people of NH to vote on declaring peaceful independence from the United States, which is all the bill would have done – simply let the people vote.
New Hampshire gets a lot of credit for having a thriving liberty activism migration here and many elected libertarians serving in the legislature as the “Freedom Caucus”. So, why did so many freedom-oriented state reps hide in the shadows on the CACR 32 vote? They privately would support independence, but these reps were too cowardly to show their true colors. A major objection from them was that secession isn’t popular, but the scientific polling done by the Foundation for NH Independence over the summer blew that fear out of the water, showing that nearly one-in-three Granite Staters and over 50% of NH republicans already support New Hampshire being an independent nation.
The other major objection from the reps who otherwise should have supported this issue was fear of not getting re-elected. Now we have the indisputable proof that this fear was also unfounded. Though it’s true that most of the NH population isn’t ready to secede, that doesn’t mean they don’t support putting it to a vote. According to the FNHI polling, 42% support putting the question of NH independence to voters, with 12% unsure. Still, most politicians aren’t known for their leadership and courage, so now they can look at the brave thirteen state reps who were willing to take the arrows from the loyalists to the Empire. Let’s take a look at what happened with those thirteen reps, and why it’s a success story for the NH Exit movement.
Of the thirteen reps who heroically voted in favor of CACR 32, several decided not to run again: Mark Warden, Raymond Howard, Dennis Green, Dustin Dodge, and Alan Bershstein. Of the eight running for re-election, three didn’t make it through the primary: The Seacoast’s Max Abramson who barely got defeated by 54 votes, or just over 1%. There’s no indication that his support of independence played a role in his narrow defeat. In the Lakes Region, longtime reps Glen Aldrich and CACR 32’s main sponsor Mike Sylvia lost handily to their republican opponents. However, Sylvia himself and other election observers attributed their losses to the Gunstock Mountain situation where they were targeted politically from the left and right for trying to de-fund and probably ultimately sell the state-owned ski area. That left five of the eight pro-independence reps who were seeking re-election, advancing to the primary.
All five were successfully re-elected! The big race to watch was Rindge state rep Matt Santonastaso. Santonastaso was a key leader with CACR 32 and was targeted heavily by the democrats for his support of NH independence. He doesn’t just want people to be able to vote on it, he’s a strong advocate for New Hampshire’s peaceful divorce from the United States. Every newspaper article I saw about him labeled him as a secessionist, even in the headlines. He won re-election, along with reps Glenn Bailey, Diane Kelley, Paul Terry, and Josh Yokela. Plus they gained at least one newly elected first-time representative, Jason Gerhard, who was endorsed by the newly-formed NH Independence PAC.
Empire Loyalist Brodie Deshaies, was DEFEATED in the primary!
The NHIPAC will surely be reaching out to the other new and returning liberty-oriented state reps – of which there were a record number elected this year, including a record 50 free staters – to see who is willing to go on the record in favor of freedom from the United States.The state reps who had excuses before will probably still have excuses the next time legislation like CACR 32 comes up, but now they can’t claim they won’t win re-election or that no one supports independence, because those are simply fear-based and not the reality on-the-ground in New Hampshire. The popularity of peaceful secession is only going to increase as the federal government continues to ratchet up the tyranny no mater which political party is running it.
What’s next for NH independence? The newly elected and re-elected state reps have a couple of weeks to file legislation for the upcoming 2023 session that kicks off this winter. What secession-related bills will be filed this time? Stay tuned here to NHexit.US for the latest, and don’t forget to sign the petition if you haven’t yet.
P.S. Goodbye to the federal government’s loyalist rep, Brodie Deshaies – the young pro-tyranny state rep from Wolfeboro who was the key spokesman against CACR 32 in the state house. Deshaies didn’t make it through the primary! Of course a new loyalist to the Empire will rise to take his place the next time the state house debates NH independence, but the loyalists never have any argument except appeals to violence and “authority”.
Videos are now available on Odysee covering various aspects of the rally and the Ballot Law Commission meeting yesterday where Karen Sue Steele’s challenge of the “Independent Thirteen” failed by a 5-0 vote. Karen had been trying to get the secession-friendly state reps barred from ever holding office again.
Free Keene’s video includes a speech given by the President of the Foundation for NH Independence, Alu Axelman, the full portion of the commission meeting where the BLC heard Karen’s complaint, an interview by NBC Boston with CACR 32 co-sponsor Matt Santonastaso, and the activists confronting Karen when she leaves the building:
Dave Ridley of the Ridley Report was also on-the-scene. His video contains his reporting on the events and also multiple “ambush” videos where he speaks to various politicians and bureaucrats as they enter or exit the hearing:
Karen and her handler Kathy Slade slinked away for now. What will they try next? I’m excited to see and grateful to them for providing the NH Independence movement with so much free publicity!
NHexit Supporters Outside the State Archives Building
Today was a big day for the New Hampshire Independence movement. Not only did Karen Sue Steele’s attempt to disqualify the “Independent Thirteen” from the ballot fail by a 5-0 vote of the Ballot Law Commission, but more importantly, the NH Attorney General’s office weighed in with their official position.
Specifically, assistant attorney general Kevin Scura who sits as an advisor on the Commission, was asked to speak to Karen’s complaint. Karen’s email to the Commission had claimed the state reps were in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The Scura made it clear that “insurrection” and “rebellion” – as cited in the 14th Amendment – involve the use of violence. This is what those of us advocating for peaceful independence have been pointing out. A ballot measure is using the democratic process to change the system, not open violence.
Karen had claimed that insurrection doesn’t necessarily involve violence and further went so far to make the laughable claim that simply speaking words against the government would qualify as “giving aid or comfort to the enemies” of the “United States”.
The commission stated clearly that they had no jurisdiction over constitutional questions, and voted 5-0 to dismiss Karen’s complaint. That’s great news, but it was also great news that dozens of NHexit supporters came out to support independence and even more importantly, the mainstream media was present. Curiously, the media was nowhere to be found when CACR 32 had its public hearing earlier this year, or when the state house voted on it, but as soon as a Karen showed up to start some drama, multiple media organizations descended. I made sure to thank Karen after the meeting for all the free publicity.
Full video coverage of the meeting and the confrontation of Karen will be posted here in the coming days. Meanwhile, here’s a quick media rundown of some of the coverage we’ve gotten within hours of the end of the meeting today. All of the media organizations below had reporters at today’s meeting:
Karen Sue Steele, Hates Independence, Originally from MN.
A real-life Karen is targeting the “Independent Thirteen”, the thirteen courageous state representatives who earlier this year voted against killing CACR 32, the NH Independence constitutional amendment. Karen Sue Steele of Atkinson NH has sent in a complaint to the “Ballot Law Commission” demanding the state reps be removed from office and barred from ever running again. She emailed her complaint his weekend and Secretary of State David Scanlan forwarded her email to all the state reps involved with an invitation to the upcoming commission meeting on Wednesday August 24th, 1pm at the Archives and Records Management building at 9 Ratification Way in Concord. All reps who have been identified in her complaint are allowed to speak at the meeting, which is open to the public. Pro-independence activists will rally outside the building starting at noon.
Karen’s email to the Commission says:
I would very much like to get on the agenda for this Wednesday’s meeting, August 24, at 1 pm in Concord.
It is my assertion that the following people are no longer eligible to hold office in NH and thus are unqualified to run for office as they are in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 3.
1) The seven (7) members of our NH House of Representatives who sponsored a bill to secede from the United States of America: 2022-2243/CACR32 – “Providing that the state peaceably declares independence from the United States and proceeds as a sovereign nation” and
2) The 13 members of the NH House of Representatives voted to not ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) or kill the bill/NH Constitutional Amendment.
Given the overlap, there are a total of 14 individuals who should not be allowed to run for or hold office in New Hampshire.
Karen’s wrong, of course. Regarding her first-numbered point, the state reps in question did not sponsor a bill to secede from the United States of America, as anyone who actually bothered to read CACR 32 would know. The bill was a proposed constitutional amendment that, if passed by over 3/5ths of the state house and senate, would have placed a question on the ballot for the people of New Hampshire to decide on whether or not to declare peaceful independence from the US. Passing CACR 32 would merely have caused a vote of the people, and if over 2/3rds voted yes, then the constitution would have been amended to add the following to Article 7 of the NH Bill of Rights:
[Art.] 7-a. [Independent Nation.] New Hampshire peaceably declares independence from the United States and immediately proceeds as a sovereign nation. All other references to the United States in this constitution, state statutes and regulations are nullified.”
State Rep Mike Sylvia Speaks on the State House Floor about CACR 32
Second, we’ve heard her ridiculous claim that the US Constitution’s 14th amendment prohibits what the heroic NH reps did, from loyalist state rep Brodie Deshaies at the public hearing on CACR 32. However, as Mike Sylvia – CACR 32’s prime sponsor – previously argued, the 14th amendment only prohibits office-holders from “engaging in insurrection or rebellion”. Anyone who bothers to actually look up those terms in a dictionary, would see they both involve violence against the state. Obviously a proposed vote of the people on a constitutional amendment to peaceably exit the US isn’t violence in any way, so it will be interesting to see how the Ballot Law Commission rules on this at Wednesday’s meeting.
We knew the loyalists to the Empire would be making secession a major issue this election season, which is great news! The more attention independence receives, the more people in New Hampshire will consider peaceful secession for the first time. The more people on the fence will be convinced to join us. I’m grateful that Karen brought this complaint as either way the Ballot Law Commission decides will make things more exciting. If they rule to disqualify the reps from office it could lead to an appeal to the NH Supreme Court and if they rule to keep the reps in place then it’s official that the reps were indeed working within the system’s own rules by proposing the amendment, which means Karen and her ilk will be even more frustrated.
Interestingly, Karen Sue Steele is quite the busybody around Atkinson, Danville and Rockingham County, as anyone with the ability to search the internet could discover. Also, turns out that Karen’s not from New Hampshire, originally hailing from La Crescent, MN. Many of the most ardent big government supporters in New Hampshire are not natives. I wonder if Karen is willing to debate Alu Axelman about independence for NH. He has yet to be able to find any loyalists to talk publicly about their viewpoint. Alu also covered the news about Karen’s attack on the state reps in his detailed article at the Liberty Block. If you’d like Karen to debate this publicly, she helpfully included her contact information in her public complaint. Be kind if you decide to reach out:
Karen Steele
4 Pebble Brook Road
Atkinson, NH 03811
603-362-8850 – home
978-857-6048 – cell
karen.sue.steele@gmail.com
The loyalists are desperate and don’t realize what they are up against. NH Independence is already surprisingly popular amongst NH inhabitants, with nearly one in three supporting New Hampshire being an independent nation and 52% of republicans. See the details on the recent, first-ever Survey USA poll results here.
The recently-formed NH Independence PAC has called for supporters of an independent New Hampshire to gather for a rally starting at noon on Wednesday August 24th, outside the State Archives at 9 Ratification Way (formerly 71 South Fruit Street) in Concord prior to the start of the Ballot Law Commission meeting at 1pm. They will then attend the meeting in support of the brave state reps who are under fire from this literal Karen. Hope to see you there!
29% agree, “I would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.”
Thanks to the folks at the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, we now have the results (PDF, web) of their first-ever scientific poll of the people of NH on various questions related to NH independence from the United States! Conducted by SurveyUSA, 625 adults in New Hampshire were asked 27 questions, so there’s a lot of data to go through, but here are some important takeaways.
First, 29% of all respondents either said they strongly agree or somewhat agree that they “would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.” This alone is tremendous news! Nearly one in three already onboard is an excellent starting point to begin persuading the rest of the population. Given only 2/3rds are needed to pass a constitutional amendment, we’re almost halfway there! Another 14% said they were “not sure”, so those people are already on the fence on the issue.
Someone may claim this is a fluke poll, but it’s actually in line with another secession poll conducted in 2021 by Bright Line Watch which asked people across the country if they “support seceding from the US to form a new regional union”. It’s not as good of a question for our purposes, as we don’t want to be in a union with the rest of New England, but it does give some insight into regional interest in independence. In that poll, 34% of New Englanders said they support seceding for joining a regional union! That result is right in line with the SurveyUSA numbers targeting only NH respondents.
63% agree, “I trust my state government more than I trust the federal government.”
An even more interesting takeaway from the NH poll is that 52% of republicans say they strongly agree or somewhat agree that they “would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.” Plus, 11% said they were “not sure”. When the historic, proposed constitutional amendment to peacefully secede came up this year in the state house, despite having several republican sponsors, the establishment republicans spoke firmly against it. Others quietly told us they agreed with the bill, but were too afraid they’d lose their re-election if they supported it. Ultimately only thirteen voted against the establishment motion to table the bill. Now that we have the encouraging results of this poll showing majority republican support for secession, perhaps some of the state reps will find a spine. Hopefully the newly established NH Independence PAC will be able to use this data to try to persuade them to stand up in favor of independence for New Hampshire.
As the Foundation for NH Independence pointed out in their announcement of the poll numbers, over time people’s opinions can shift on an issue once considered impossible, like shall-issue gun permits. They say in 1990 that shall-issue permits were less popular than secession is today, but opinions changed and now the supermajority of states have them. Let’s look at some reasons why the numbers are going to shift in favor of independence for NH:
We already have roughly 2/3rds of people in NH who are frustrated with the federal government. As the feds continue to get worse, more and more will let go of their indoctrinated, nationalistic love of the United States and join the side of NH independence.
Interestingly, only 39% of respondents agreed that, “If New Hampshire were not already part of the United States, it would be beneficial for the state to join, and be governed by DC.” Showing that even though some in NH aren’t ready to leave just yet, they sure wouldn’t want to join this terrible union! Further, 42% said that the question of secession should be put to New Hampshire voters, and 12% said “not sure”.
Will NH’s state reps be persuaded by these numbers?
Whenever one speaks to people about declaring independence from the United States, the number one objection is the fear that the military will be used to attack the state that is seceding. This is an understandable fear, given what happened in the 1800s. However, this poll shows it has no basis in reality, as across all eight states that were polled, an average of only 6% would support military intervention if a state secedes. While 37% would support some form of “economic sanctions”, the majority – 57% – say the state should simply be allowed to leave. Americans don’t want to kill their own families and friends just because they want to leave the union and if the federal government gets violent with a seceding state, it will only undermine their legitimacy even further.
The New Hampshire Independence movement is just getting started and I’m excited that so many people are already supportive. If you love liberty and want to secede, you should be here in NH. Come help us make this a reality sooner rather than later. Time is of the essence. You can start by signing the petition!
You can see the full results including crosstabs (PDF, web) for yourself, so feel free to dig through the data yourself!